Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.

We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.

We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

February 18, 2018

Pennsylvania DOC
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

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

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of an undated Unacceptable Correspondence Form relating to prisoner notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections citing no reasons for censorship or identifying a specific publication, this appeal is timely.

While in the normal course of notification, the publisher or distributor need only be notified of the censorship on one occasion, we have yet to be notified as required. Further, the language of the Notice referring to “Denied MIM Publication” gives all appearances of a blanket ban on ULK and other MIM(P) publications, in direct violation of the requirement for individualized assessment of each publication. Such a blanket ban in unconstitutional on its face.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice provides no reasons for or specific references to objectionable content. Further the Notice does not reference any issue of ULK or otherwise name the publication being rejected, supporting a reasonable basis to believe a blanket ban is in place.

As to the notice provided to Mr. X, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship specifying the reasons for censorship and the title of the publication being censored within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

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).

The censorship notices provided to Mr. X provides no information upon which an appeal may be based. Further review by your agency will likely show that no objectionable content exists in the unknown publication and therefore we require the publication be delivered to Mr. X forthwith. We also require notification that such action has been taken, to include the title of the publication.


Please govern yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors