Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

November 12, 2017

South Carolina Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
Post Office Box 21787
Columbia, SC 29210

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons booklet

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Notice to Withhold Incoming Correspondence (notice) for the above referenced publication addressed to the above referenced prisoner. The notice states that the publication is being reviewed for objectionable material.

A review of the contents for the impounded publication clearly shows the material provided is akin to many college level courses on world history relating to socialism and communism. There is no objectionable material or material which violates any South Carolina DOC policy contained within the publication.

As there is no objectionable material, we must demand you deliver the publication to Mr. XXXXXX forthwith.

Should you improperly censor the publication we demand you provide us with specific reasons for such censorship and specific citations to the objectionable content as required by numerous federal court decisions. 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 govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors