Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

From rejection notification: "The entire publication has a 'revolutinoary, protest, uprising' theme. There is also red ink on the back page that will be rejected becasue it cannot be searched thoroughly."

Pgs 6 Liberation schools to organize through the wall (talk about the hunger strikes)
Pgs 8 DPRK; White Supremancy's global Agenda
Pgs 11 Case law to help those facing
Pgs 19 White and gaining consciousness

November 12, 2017

Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 58

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above referenced prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on an article “talk about the hunger strikes’”. “Talk about” is mere reporting of information, such hunger strikes were reported by mainstream media, such as USA Today and those publications were not subject to censorship. The objectionable content allegedly “otherwise presents a threat” for activity that threatens the order or safety of the institution (reference as subsection 3(m) on the form). It is clear that “talking about” such activity does not include plans for such activity, such “talking about” is clearly protected speech, even in a prison setting, as it does not advocate rule breaking. The other notations as to alleged objectionable material are in the form of informative news articles of global conditions, many of these same issues have been reported in the mainstream media without censorship. One egregious violation is the reference to “case law” as objectionable, this is clear on its face as an unreasonable application of the FLDOC policy in direct violation of the Constitution. The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred and the censorship is without merit.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

If a publication is impounde or rejected, a notice will be given to you. Every issue of Lock & Key has been rejected by the State since January 2014. Notices have been given to all subscribers. There is no record of you subscribing to this publication.

Your informal grievance is DENIED.

P. Vartiainen
Mail Room

September 6, 2017

Washington DOC
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
[Names of 9 prisoners]

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of nine (9) Rejection Notices (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that pages 3, 11, and 13 contain references to plans for activity that violate laws or rules, security threat group information, and overthrowing the government. A review of the pages cited show that no such information is shown. The notice also states, “A lot of articles that other offenders from other facilities.” It is unclear what alleged objectionable content this references and it is clearly not an objective or valid reason to support censorship.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

As the general references to pages when such pages contain none of the material cited, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 57 be vacated and delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

Reason overturned "states actual events"