Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

August 23, 2023

Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
2727 E. Beecher St
Adrian, MI 49221

Re: Notice of Mail/Package Rejection

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The notice cites pages 4 and 6 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates Michigan Department of Corrections PD.05.03.118. Page 4 is alleged to contain material advocating for “group insurrection” while page 6 is alleged to contain material which “Advocate[s]/Promote[s] Violence or Unrest.”

We have reviewed ULK and believe these descriptions are inaccurate and thusly the refusal to forward the publication to Mr. XXXXXX is unjust.

Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship],” as you have done so here.

We would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly lay out our opposition to both violence and group insurrection, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”

Additionally, we would like to refer you to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800 where the Supreme Court held that the censorship of statements which “magnify grievances” is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, we will remind you that PD.05.03.118 itself lays out that “Mail shall not be prohibited solely because its content is … political, social, …, [or] unpopular.”

As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

A hearing was conducted on August 15, 2023. This hearing concluded that the publication in question would be rejected.

...Your appeal has been denied.

August 23, 2023

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Notice of Action Taken for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated August 8, 2023.

The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which is “dangerously inflammatory” or “presents a threat to … security.” You further list articles found in pages 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 15 as containing objectionable material under the aforementioned criteria.

As the publishers of ULK, we know that none of the listed articles contain material which fits the descriptions you allege that it does. We would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly lay out our opposition the claims made, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship].” Merely citing the titles of articles in the newsletter is not sufficient explanation for its censorship on the basis of security concerns.

As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason” (emphasis added). Should you decide censor ULK on different grounds, we expect to be notified.

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

August 23, 2023

California City Correctional Facility
22844 Virginia Blvd
California City, CA 93505

Re: Publication Withheld Pending Review

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The notice cites page 6 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material “depicts violence by suicide with the use of a gun.”

Aside from the fact that this is an inaccurate description of the artwork in question, we contend that the mere depiction of a violent act is not “tending to incite … violence” as laid out in the aforementioned Section 3006 (1). Instructive are the court’s rulings in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987). We quote from this ruling the following: “there must be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. … Thus, a regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.”

We would put forth that there is no such logical connection between the purported goal of preventing access to material which is “tending to incite … violence” and such a wide-reaching ban of any artistic expression depicting violence. Furthermore, we would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly discourage any forms of violence, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

August 11, 2023

CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

Re: Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Notice of Action Taken for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 81 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated July 17, 2023.

The listed reason for censorship is “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA, LAST BLACK PANTHERS.”

Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns prison, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship],” as you have done so here.

As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason” (emphasis added). Should you decide censor ULK on different grounds, we expect to be notified.

We request the decision to withhold issue 81 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.

Your previous refusal to detail the terms of censorship is patently unconstitutional. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

Mr. Dean Patterson is in charge of the Literature Review Committee
FDOC
501 South Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500


Other relevant contacts:

email: Charles.Huber@fdc.myflorida.com, Melvin.Herring@fdc.myflorida.com

...On August 03, 2023, the Literature Review Committee reviewed the subject matter content in question submitted by the institution. It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(15)(j)(n)(p).

...your administrative appeal is denied.

Z. Culpepper

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

26 May 2023

RE: 16 May Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence

To Whom It May Concern,

We are in receipt of five notices dated and postmarked 5/16/2023 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is responding to those notices because we do not agree with the decision to censor our mail.

All five notices give the reason: “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA"

As I’ve notified you of in my previous letters, there is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons. In this case the reason cited is “FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA”. New Afrika is a name for people of African descent who were brought to the new world of North America to be slaves and continue to live in this country. New Afrika is not a Security Threat Group, it is a nationality made up of diverse people.

I never received a response to my previous appeals, but I do know that the prisoners did not receive the literature, so I am assuming that you upheld the previous decisions that our mail was “STG” material. Therefore I am requesting the IDOC’s rules that defines how material can be deemed to be “STG” so that we can be better equipped to avoid these problems in the future.

Once again, I am requesting that you deliver the mail in question (which I believe to be Under Lock & Key Issue 81) to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.

Sincerely,

On May 16, 2023 MIM Distributors sent me a newspaper, however that newspapr was confiscated, Spring 2023 No. 81. Citing OII STG Front page New Afrika. My question to Ms. Chambers, what does New Afrika have to do with STG? MIM Under Lock & Key does not promote racism and/or religious oppression and the superiority of one race/religion/political group over another. STG cannot be used as an excuse to censor people for their political beliefs. Also on the notice of report of action taken on correspondence why wasn't I informed that I had a right to appeal your decision?

[State the relief that you are seeking]

I would like for Ms. Chambers to stop using STG as an excuse to censor my mail, and to forward my newspaper to me immediately.

I don't expect my grievance to be responded to which is why I'm forwarding a copy to the courts keeping them abreast of my situation.