Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

September 1, 2018

Arizona Department of Corrections
Office of Publication Review
1601 West Jefferson Street
Mail Code 481
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Re: Request Appeal of Under Lock & Key July/August 2018 Issue 63

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 of alleged content in violation of DO 914.07, section 1.2.3. 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. We object to such failure to clearly state with specificity the location and content of the alleged objectionable material.

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 clearly established federal case law. A more definite statement of the objectionable content is required. This letter serves as our demand for such a more definitive statement.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, this constitutes 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. This is further supported by the censorship of ULK issues 61and 62 under the same pretext.

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.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

September 1, 2018

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

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).

The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”

The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

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 yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

Mailing Date of this Decision: September 12, 2018

RE: Under Lock and Key, July/August 2018, #63

This is to notify you that your appeal is late and is dismissed on that basis. As such, it violates Department policy for the reason previously stated.

Policy Office
PA Department of Corrections

September 1, 2018

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

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).

The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”

The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

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 yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

September 1, 2018

North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221

Re: Request Appeal of Under Lock & Key May/June 2018 Issue 62

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice), dated August 13, 2018, for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because of alleged content in violation of policy D.0109(f). However, the addendum references a violation of section (h) and specifies the offending material as being on page 2. The notice states page 2 “has verbiage that may incite distributive behavior.” Distributive behavior is not a violation of policy D.0109.

A careful review of page 2 of the publication shows no content which remotely meets the alleged objection set forth in the notice. Further, the content of page 2 does not meet any definition of objectionable content as defined by any portion of policy D.0109.

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).

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.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors