Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Facts reviewed: On grievance dated 7/13/17 offender claims that the May/June 2017 issue of MIM Distributors, No. 56 was banned but feels that he should be allowed to have it since he is interested in all radical political movements.

Counselor Dennis responded "According to the Publication Review Committee MIM Distributors May/June 2017 No. 56 is on the banned list."

Grievance Officer finds that according to the PRC Chairperson the publicaiton was reviewed and determined to be on the banne dlist. Offenders' political beliefs are not a factor in PRC determinations. Offender received and signed a Publication Review Determination and Course of Action DOC0212 form on 7/13/17. It appears that proper protocol was followed.

Recommendation: Based upon a total review of all available information it is the recomendation of this Grievance Officer that this offender's grievance be DENIED due to offender's publicaiton being on the banned list.

Grievance officer's name: David Mansfield, CCII

Chief Administrator Officer's Response 7/21/2017:
"I Concur"

September 6, 2017

Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 56


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a notice of censorship from XX concerning the issue of Under Lock Key (ULK), issue 56. We are the distributors of ULK and did not receive notice of the censorship of this issue at any time.

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).

Please provide an original reason for censorship of issue 56 of ULK, which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Illinois Administrative Code title 20, section 525.140(h) requires written notification to the sender when mail is censored or denied.
In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 56 be vacated and the issue be delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.

You may respond to the address listed.


Sincerely,
MIM Distributors

Notification of publication denial because publication:

Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or itm ight facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.

Article drugs in prison, unity amongst prisoners.

Promotes leadership and organization detrimental to safety and security of the facility.

Signed: C. Hunter

contains correspondence, information, or othre items relating to another offender(s) without prior approval from the Superintendent/designee: or attempts to convey unauthorized offender to offender correspondence.

The newsletter talks about September 9 events including commencing a hunger strike until equal treatment, retaliation, and legal rights issues are resolved. (p13)

contains correspondence, information, or othre items relating to another offender(s) without prior approval from the Superintendent/designee: or attempts to convey unauthorized offender to offender correspondence.

The newsletter talks about September 9 events including commencing a hunger strike until equal treatment, retaliation, and legal rights issues are resolved. (p13)

Advocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority.
Advocates that a protected class or group of individuals is inferior and/or makes such class/group the object of ridicule and/or scorn, and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation between the recipient and a member(s) of the target group. rejected incoming mailing from MIM. Mailing contains working that appears to be refering to law enforcement as "pigs" it appears to be ridiculing and scornful. There is also a section in mailing labeled solutions taht calls prisoners to take actions against prison industries and gives specific ideas/suggestions. Nothing to forward onto offender.

Mailroom Employee Name: April Long

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Number 57 July/August 2017 Pages 1-24

for the following reasons:

D. Material, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure.

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.

You may otain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 269633, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerey,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

October 4, 2017

Virginia Department of Corrections
Deputy Director, Division of Operations
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated September 14, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). We received the Notice on October 2, 2017 and have fifteen (15) days from that date to submit this appeal. See VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (F)(2). This appeal is timely.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (D&F). The Notice cited to pages 1-24 of ULK. However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2. 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 PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

A reference to pages 1-24 and boilerplate language fails to “clearly inform” us of the grounds for the censorship.

As such, we object to the notice of 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 within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to vagueness, we will address the two portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.

Subsection (D) references “[m]aterial, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure Note: This criterion shall not be used to exclude publications that describe such acts in the context of a story or moral teaching unless the description of such acts is the primary purpose of the publication. No publication generally recognized as having artistic or literary value should be excluded under this criterion...” A careful review of ULK shows that there is no content which meets this criterion.

Subsection (F) references “[m]aterial that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.” Again, a careful review of the referenced pages of ULK shows there are no such references.

It is readily apparent that the Virginia Department of Corrections has banned ULK “solely because the [publication’s content] is religious, philosophical, political…or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.” Such censorship based on this reasoning is a violation of our First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

In the alternative, we require a more definitive statement as to the specific sections of ULK which are alleged to violate Virginia Department of Corrections policy.

You may reply to the address listed.