Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

contains correspondence, information, or othre items relating to another offender(s) without prior approval from the Superintendent/designee: or attempts to convey unauthorized offender to offender correspondence.

The newsletter talks about September 9 events including commencing a hunger strike until equal treatment, retaliation, and legal rights issues are resolved. (p13)

contains correspondence, information, or othre items relating to another offender(s) without prior approval from the Superintendent/designee: or attempts to convey unauthorized offender to offender correspondence.

The newsletter talks about September 9 events including commencing a hunger strike until equal treatment, retaliation, and legal rights issues are resolved. (p13)

Advocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority.
Advocates that a protected class or group of individuals is inferior and/or makes such class/group the object of ridicule and/or scorn, and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation between the recipient and a member(s) of the target group. rejected incoming mailing from MIM. Mailing contains working that appears to be refering to law enforcement as "pigs" it appears to be ridiculing and scornful. There is also a section in mailing labeled solutions taht calls prisoners to take actions against prison industries and gives specific ideas/suggestions. Nothing to forward onto offender.

Mailroom Employee Name: April Long

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Number 57 July/August 2017 Pages 1-24

for the following reasons:

D. Material, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure.

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.

You may otain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 269633, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerey,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

October 4, 2017

Virginia Department of Corrections
Deputy Director, Division of Operations
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated September 14, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). We received the Notice on October 2, 2017 and have fifteen (15) days from that date to submit this appeal. See VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (F)(2). This appeal is timely.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (D&F). The Notice cited to pages 1-24 of ULK. However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2. 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).

A reference to pages 1-24 and boilerplate language fails to “clearly inform” us of the grounds for the censorship.

As such, we object to the notice of 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 within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to vagueness, we will address the two portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.

Subsection (D) references “[m]aterial, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure Note: This criterion shall not be used to exclude publications that describe such acts in the context of a story or moral teaching unless the description of such acts is the primary purpose of the publication. No publication generally recognized as having artistic or literary value should be excluded under this criterion...” A careful review of ULK shows that there is no content which meets this criterion.

Subsection (F) references “[m]aterial that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.” Again, a careful review of the referenced pages of ULK shows there are no such references.

It is readily apparent that the Virginia Department of Corrections has banned ULK “solely because the [publication’s content] is religious, philosophical, political…or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.” Such censorship based on this reasoning is a violation of our First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

In the alternative, we require a more definitive statement as to the specific sections of ULK which are alleged to violate Virginia Department of Corrections policy.

You may reply to the address listed.

September 17, 2017

Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your form (DC5-101) dated August 14, 2017 relating to notification of impoundment (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). We are the distributors of ULK. We have received no notice of censorship as required by chapter 33 of the Florida Admisntrative Code. The impoundment of ULK is de facto censorship and does not provide adequate notice of such censorship in violation of the United States Constitution and a litany of cases which are directly on point.

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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

As such, we object to the notice of 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 within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the issues raised, we will address the portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.

The issue of ULK was impounded alleging the material was in violation of Fla. Admin. Code 33-501.401 (3)(e), (3)(g), and (3)(m). It is alleged pages 1, 11, 14, 15 and 17 advocate insurgency and disruption of institutional operations. A careful review of the referenced pages, do not contain any objectionable material as outlined by F.A.C. 33-501.401.

It is readily apparent that the Florida Department of Corrections has banned ULK “solely because the [publication’s content] is religious, philosophical, political…or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.” Such censorship based on this reasoning is a violation of our First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

We request the decision to censor the Guide be vacated and ULK be delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

Please provide a written response which addresses our grievances within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

You may reply to the address listed.

September 29, 2017

Re: Impoundment of "Under Lock and Key - Issue 57"

My name is Dean Peterson, and I am Library Services Administrator for the Florida Department of Corrections. I am in receipt of your letter regarding "under Lock and Key - Issue 57." The DC5-101 form that you mention receiving in your letter was the notice of impoundment. The reasons for impoundment from the DC5-101 that you cite in your letter are the actual reasons the publication was impounded. They are from the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 33-501.401(3). I will list them again here for your convenience:

(e) It depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption;
(g) It is dangerously inflammatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurrection, idsruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules;
(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

In their regularly scheduled meeting of August 30, 2017 the Literature Review Committee of the Florida Department of Corrections upheld the institution's impoundment and rejected the publication for the grounds stated. This means that issue will not be allowed into our correctional institutions. In researching this response it was noted that the issue was incorrectly entered into our database solely for FAC 33-501.401(3)(m), but that clerical error is being corrected and the database will reflect all three reasons set forth for the rejection.

If you have further questions please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dean Peterson, Library Services Admiinstrator
Florida Department of Corrections
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

In their regularly scheduled meeting of August 30, 2017 the Literature Review Committee of the Florida Department of Corrections upheld the institution's impoundment and rejected the publication for the grounds stated. This means that issue will not be allowed into our correctional institutions

September 5, 2017

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 57

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 11, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice” and referring only to Mr. XX) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). However, we were also notified by Mr. YY of censorship of the same issue, but for different reasons. Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections concerning the reasons cited in reference to Mr. YY, 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, our position is that when such censorship cites any differing reasons for censorship separate notifications are required.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice cited to page eleven (11) of ULK and stated “advocates solidarity.” However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated PADOC DC-ADM 803. A review of PADOC DC-ADM 803 shows that the word “solidarity” is mentioned nowhere in the policy and is clear on its face that “advocat[ing] solidarity” is not. Page 11 clearly and unequivocally promotes only peaceful solidarity. Solidarity is defined as “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.”1 One need only conduct a simple Internet search to locate correctional officers acting in solidarity.(2)

As to the notice provided to Mr. YY, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship for the reasons set forth in Mr. YY’s notice within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

While reserving our right to appeal the second censorship decision, we would note that the notice sent to Mr. YY alleges a verbatim quote as the reason for censorship. “[T]he strip searches in the PA DOC are only for harassment purposes and we the people need to learn to fight and take a stand against the ‘pigs’ in the prisons.” These words in this quote appear nowhere in the cited pages or the entire publication. This alone requires the censorship decision to be vacated, as the decision cannot be supported based on words authored by the censor and not the publication

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 request the decision of the Incoming Publications Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those prisoners to whom it was addressed. The censorship notices provided to either MIM Distributors or Mr. XX make sufficient allegations of content which withstands scrutiny and must be vacated.


You may reply to the address listed.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

Re: Under Lock & Key #57, July/August 2017

This is to notify you that the publicaiton in issue does not violate Department Policy. As such, the decision of the correctional institution is reversed and the inmates in the PA Department of Corrections will be permitted to receive the publication. The correctional institutions will be notified by the Policy Office of the decision.

Sincerely,

The Policy Office
PA Department of Corrections

September 5, 2017

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 57

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 11, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice” and referring only to Mr. XX) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). However, we were also notified by Mr. YY of censorship of the same issue, but for different reasons. Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections concerning the reasons cited in reference to Mr. YY, 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, our position is that when such censorship cites any differing reasons for censorship separate notifications are required.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice cited to page eleven (11) of ULK and stated “advocates solidarity.” However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated PADOC DC-ADM 803. A review of PADOC DC-ADM 803 shows that the word “solidarity” is mentioned nowhere in the policy and is clear on its face that “advocat[ing] solidarity” is not. Page 11 clearly and unequivocally promotes only peaceful solidarity. Solidarity is defined as “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.”1 One need only conduct a simple Internet search to locate correctional officers acting in solidarity.(2)

As to the notice provided to Mr. YY, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship for the reasons set forth in Mr. YY’s notice within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

While reserving our right to appeal the second censorship decision, we would note that the notice sent to Mr. YY alleges a verbatim quote as the reason for censorship. “[T]he strip searches in the PA DOC are only for harassment purposes and we the people need to learn to fight and take a stand against the ‘pigs’ in the prisons.” These words in this quote appear nowhere in the cited pages or the entire publication. This alone requires the censorship decision to be vacated, as the decision cannot be supported based on words authored by the censor and not the publication

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 request the decision of the Incoming Publications Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those prisoners to whom it was addressed. The censorship notices provided to either MIM Distributors or Mr. XX make sufficient allegations of content which withstands scrutiny and must be vacated.


You may reply to the address listed.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

Re: Under Lock & Key #57, July/August 2017

This is to notify you that the publicaiton in issue does not violate Department Policy. As such, the decision of the correctional institution is reversed and the inmates in the PA Department of Corrections will be permitted to receive the publication. The correctional institutions will be notified by the Policy Office of the decision.

Sincerely,

The Policy Office
PA Department of Corrections

Why Agusta Correctional Center mailroom h ave been returning to sender approval publication MIM Distributors newsletters (Under Lock & Key)? According to MIM Distributors. Which I have received several issues here at this institution. Furthermore, Murphy v. Missouri DOC, 814 F.2d 1252 - an inmate whose mail is withheld must receive notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to appeal to a prison official who was not involved in the original censorship decision, MIM(Prisons).

The mailroom has no record of returning any newsletters, if we had, we would have sent you a copy. Please ask MIM why it was returned - was it from the post office or did it not address offender name and number info on envelope? All Lock & Key newsletters have been forwarded to offenders, and are approved on each issue basis.

Re: Appeal of adverse ruling and decision made and entered by Estelle Unit mailroom supervisor to deny the publication Under Lock and Key, July/August 2017 no. 57.

Dear Chairperson and the members of director's review committee:

I write to you all in your individual and collective capacities as members of the Fl Director's Review Committee (DRC) as an exercise of my protected right to peacefully seek remedy, redress, relief, and remonstrance for complaint and grievances of and above to government's normally, Estelle Unit mail room supervisor's adverse decision and ruling to deny my publication named Under Lock an Key, July/August 2017, No. 57. Pursuant to TDCJ Board Policy 03.91(c). For the September 8, 2017 notice affords and willings this appeal. Within 2 weeks of being served and notified of the denial of the publication that arrived at this Ellis Unit on Sept 6 2017.

Accordingly, the appealing offender appeals the adverse ruling and decision of the Estelle Unit mail room supervisor who exercised and executed her capacity of employment and its authority in accordance and present to TDCJ Board Policy 03.91(c) which reads in relevant and pertinent part as set forth and stated:

"(c) it contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disception such as strikes, riots or security threat group activity…"

Which the appealing offender has not been allowed to inspect the offending information as found on page 11 of this publication namely: Under Lock and Key, July/August 2017, No. 57 does contend and complain the ruling and decision made by Estelle Unit mail room supervisor is an abuse of discretion, arbitrary, and capricious in nature and manner where the subject matter is not in violation of United States constitution and the state of Texas Constitution which afford, enforce and protect the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press for the editorial and publishing staff of its publication, namely Under Lock and Key, July/August 2017, no.57 and those of the appealing offender as herein after expressly and implicitly set forth and identified as being contrary and violative of rulings and opinions made and entered by United States Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court.

My reasons and basis for this appeal is set forth and complained as follows:

My first reason for appeal is that the Estelle Unit mailroom supervisor has engaged in an unauthorized, unlawful, and unconstitutional exercise and execution of her capacity of employment and its with [??] when she intentionally, knowingly, and willfully violated its express and implied mandate of TDCJ PD-22 discussion when the denial of the publication, namely Under Lock and Key, July/August 2017, No. 57 for subject mater and content set forth on page 11 and which her refusal and failure to keep abreast and knowledgeable of rulings and opinion by the United States Supreme Court, namely: Reagan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984); Hustler Magazone, Inc. v. Falwell, 495 U.S. 45 (19)
; U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990); Police Departmet of Chicago v. Mesley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972); Jones v. North Carolina Pirsoners Labor Union, 433 U.S. 199(1922); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974); Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and other consistent and conforming lower court decisions mandating prohibition on subject matter content of a vague nature which could be vigorously protected and supported by United State Constitution and the State of Texas constitution and their conforming laws which Estelle Unit mailroom supervisor has overtly and blatantly violating in denying the publication.

My second reason for appeal is that the arbitrary and capricious denial and refusal of publication raises serious question of the overt and blatant refusal to adhere and comply with written and posted TDCJ-PD 22 of being informed of a substantial nature and quality in order to perform job duties, responsibilities and obligations was critically locking when express and implied intent of United States Supreme Court was not and has not been maintained by Estelle Unit mail room supervisor and her subordinate staff allowing for the arbitrary denial.

Because both reason for appeal one and two content and complain the oppress and implied rulings of the United States Supreme Court would clearly and undoubtedly allow for reversal of the ruling and decision made by Estelle Unit mail room supervisor where she refused and failed to keep abreast with needed information required to perform her duties, responsibilities, and obligation of employment and its authority that was and has been applied to me in an abuse of authority and capricious denial of my publication.

I will close and request a reversal of the Estelle Unit mail room supervisor; ruling and decision where information on page 11 does not warrant denial.

"Otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person"
"Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption"
"Encourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity."

August 28, 2017

Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
MIM(Prisons) Censorship Pack

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence (DC2-521) dated July 20, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced Censorship Guide (hereinafter, “Guide”) sent to XXXX. We are the publishers of the Guide.

The Guide was censored alleging the material was in violation of Fla. Admin. Code 33-210.101. The Notice failed to identify which specific section(s) of the Guide allegedly contained the material supporting censorship and rejection.

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).

Fla. Admin. Code 33-210.101 is unconstitutional on its face and as-applied. Subsection (14)(c) clearly states “the inmate has initiated the process by filing a formal grievance within 15 days of notice of the mail rejection.” No such provision is included for the publisher to appeal the censorship decision.
The notice is also vague as it provides inadequate notice in order to justify any censorship other than a boilerplate recitation of the directive with no reference to any specific portion of the publication which is objectionable.

As such, we object to the notice of 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 within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the issues raised, we will address the portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.

The information sent was a legal guide concerning censorship of our publications by prison authorities. It includes no “threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person.” Neither does it depict, describe or encourage activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption nor encourage or instruct in the commission of criminal activity.

As such, we object to the violations of our First Amendment rights as a publisher:

1. The notice of censorship fails to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal;
2. The lack of opportunity to submit an appeal.

We request the decision to censor the Guide be vacated and the Guide be delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

Please note we are requesting a copy of any and all records relating to all the Guide being censored by the Florida Department of Corrections, to include date of censorship, identification of the document, and the specific reason for censorship.

Please provide a written response which addresses our grievances within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

You may reply to the address listed.

Sincerely,



MIM Distributors

Re: Institutional Rejection of MIM(Prisons) Censorship Guide

My name is Dean Peterson, and I am Library Services Administrator for the Florida Department of Corrections. I am in receipt of your letter regarding the MIM(Prisons) Censorship Guide. From the number of the FDC form you reference and your description of what happened it is apparent the institutional mailroom did not handled the Censorship Guide as a publication, but instead handled it in accordance with the Florida Aministrative Code rule for routine mail. As such, the item was not impounded, was not posted to the list of impounded publications for any other institution to see, was not referred to the Literature Review Committee for review, and thus does not appeal on the list of rejected publications. That means that if the exact same Guide came to any other inmate mailroom staff woul dlook at it afresh. In theory, it could even be allowed into the institution.

The Florida Administrative Code makes no provision for further review.

Sincerely,

Dean Peterson
Library Services Admiinstrator
Florida Department of Corrections
501 South Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

I have appealed their decision out of hopes of obtaining the news letter. I believe this prison is needlessly exerting oppression. I'm going to send the Director's Review Committee (DRC) a letter requesting APPROVAL of the issue. If MIM has any advice to offer, please inform me. Thank you.

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

10 September 2017

RE: censorship of Maoism and the Black Panther Party

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to a Letter to Publisher from Doug Pardue, notifying MIM Distributors of the disapproval of a pamphlet titled Maoism and the Black Panther Party. The reason given for the censorship was that "Could like[sic] precipitate violence among races of people" on pages 2,4.

I am requesting a review of this decision to censor this mail on the basis that there is no mention of violence against people of certain races. In fact, page 4 reads, “We do not fight racism with racism, We fight racism with solidarity.” In other words, the literature in question has the opposite message of what is being claimed by Mr. Pardue.

I hope that upon review you will see to it that this literature is delivered to Mr. XXXXXX,

September 11, 2017

Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Mailed Letter


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a notice of censorship of a letter addressed to XXX. We are the publishers and distributors of the letter. The letter contained basic information about our organization and included no 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).

Please provide an original reason for censorship of the letter, which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Illinois Administrative Code title 20, section 525.140(h) requires written notification to the sender when mail is censored or denied. As the letter was returned unopened, this constitutes a blanket ban on our letter, which alone is a violation of our First Amendment rights. See Murphy v. Missouri Dep’t of Corrections, 372 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2004). The First Amendment guarantees us the right to correspond with prisoners. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).

In the alternative, we request the decision to censor the letter be vacated and the letter be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX. We note that your unwarranted censorship has caused us to incur the costs of mailing and time to respond to this request. We demand payment in the amount of thirty-five dollars ($35) for your failure to follow IDOC policies, the unwarranted censorship of the letter and our costs.

You may respond to the address listed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

The item(s) of mail is being RETURNED/held for you for the reason(S) indicated:

Other: reading material (denied by Legal in Atlanta)

September 6, 2017

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

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 56



To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Mail Items Rejection Form for the above referenced issue of under Lock & Key (ULK) which was mailed to XX. The form stated the reason for censorship was “reading material (denied by legal in Atlanta).” This notice fails, on its face, to comport with the Constitutional requirements of notice.

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.

Further, if this issue of ULK was censored under a blanket ban for all ULK publications, it is an unconstitutional infringement upon our First Amendment rights. 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). As you are aware such a “blanket ban” has been found to violate a publisher’s rights to due process. If this in fact the case, we demand the Georgia Department of Corrections cease such a “blanket ban” immediately. An individualized review of the content of each issue of a publication must be reviewed prior to it being censored. Id.

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 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.

In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 56 be vacated and the issue be delivered to all inmates to whom it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors