Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

September 6, 2017

Washington DOC
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
[Names of 9 prisoners]

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of nine (9) Rejection Notices (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that pages 3, 11, and 13 contain references to plans for activity that violate laws or rules, security threat group information, and overthrowing the government. A review of the pages cited show that no such information is shown. The notice also states, “A lot of articles that other offenders from other facilities.” It is unclear what alleged objectionable content this references and it is clearly not an objective or valid reason to support censorship.

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).

As the general references to pages when such pages contain none of the material cited, we object to the 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 and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 57 be vacated and delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

September 5, 2017

Georgia DOC
Office of the Commissioner
300 Patrol Road
Forsyth, GA 31029

Re: Censorship of Mail


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a returned and unopened letter addressed to XX, at the Smith State Prison. The letter was marked in handwriting with the words “Not Authorized” and “RTS.” No other information was included and no notice of rejection was received as required by GADOC SOP IIB04-0001 H(2). The letter contained an “Unconfirmed Mail Form” which has no objectionable content, however, as the letter was returned unopened the censor had no knowledge of the contents.

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).

As such, we object to the 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 and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

We also intend this letter to serve as notice of our grievance and request an administrative investigation into the failure of GA DOC employees at Smith State Prison to adhere to GA DOC directives regarding incoming mail and censorship and the blatant violation of our First Amendment rights.

We further note that GADOC SOP IIB04-0001 provides no means for a sender, publisher, or distributor to challenge the rejection or censorship of mail. Courts in the United States have long held a First Amendment right exists to protect the right of correspondence with prisoners. As previously noted a publisher or distributor must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any censorship. As GADOC SOP IIB04-0001 fails to provide any such remedy it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. We demand the Georgia Department of Corrections immediately afford us the opportunity to exercise of our rights under the Constitution. Any failure to act within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this letter may result in appropriate legal action being taken against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

prisoner tells MIM(Prisons) "it is still being screened. The screening pocess takes 60 days whether approved or denied"