Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

February 22, 2025

ATTN: Warden Sarah Schroeder
Marquette Branch Prison
1960 U.S. Hwy. 41 South
Marquette, MI 49855

Re: Notice of Package/Mail Rejection


To Warden Schroeder:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 87 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. We are the distributors of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

First and foremost we would like to draw attention to the time limit imposed for appealing this act of censorship. We did not receive notice of the censorship until 11 business days after the signed date on the form, yet the document says that we must respond within 10 business days if we wish to appeal the rejection. This is obviously a ridiculous requirement in the given context so we hope that you will not use it as an excuse to forgo appropriately addressing our appeal herein.

Next, the listed reason for censorship is that the publication is allegedly “advocating or promoting violence, group disruption, or insurrection” as stated in policy directive 05.03.118 section PP.4. The enclosed notice further lists pages 1, 2, 6-11, 15, and 16 of ULK as examples of the aforementioned allegations but neglects to include any further details as to what specific content is purportedly “advocating” positions that constitute a security concern. As the distributors of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of the alleged descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication, and it is out of our scope herein to detail the content on every page listed above to showcase this lack of prohibited content. However, we will point out that page 2, which was listed as “advocating or promoting violence, group disruption, or insurrection”, contains nothing other than simple descriptions of our organization and resources for our readers to connect with. Furthermore, page 2 contains the following disclaimer which is included in every issue of ULK: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We are utterly confused as to how your institution’s mail room can censor ULK on the basis that it promotes “violence” and “insurrection” while the very same publication explicitly disavow such acts.

Furthermore, we would remind you that 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). Additionally, 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 when 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.”

We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 87 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,

#4 Mail advocating or promoting violence, group disruption, or insurrection

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."