Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

and is investigating more on what happened

April 12, 2021

Missouri Department of Corrections
DAI Director
2927 Plaza Drive
PO Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 72
XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 72 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The notification lists three reasons for censorship which are listed as:

1. constitutes a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the institution;
2. may facilitate or encourage criminal activity; or
3. may interfere with the rehabilitation of an offender.

A final explanation states the publication “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.”

Nowhere in the notification is there listed the page numbers or examples of content the Missouri Department of Corrections finds objectionable. This is unacceptable as a matter of law.

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).

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) (emphasis added).

The reasons cited for the censorship are vague and unsupported by the notification as no reference to any alleged objectional contents is set forth. We remind you that such a broad-based vague response is unconstitutional.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide notice, we have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 72 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

"The publications were correctly censored in conjunction with our censorship policy. Content in the publication contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population."

-- Jeff Norman, Director