Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

page numbers: all, 21
This newsletter is a safety and security risk to the operation of the facility with the articles throughout the newsletter

Statewide rejected
Notice sent to offender 6/2/2017

Dir Sir or Madame:

I am ... confined in the Michael Unit of the TDCJ.

On 3/16/17 I received from the Michael Unit mailroom a "Publication Review/Denial Notification" refusing to deliver to me the above-referenced publication based upon a finding that "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 disruption such as strikes, riots, or security threat group activity." At the place for Remarks, "Pg. 13 contains info that could cause a prison strike and prison disruption."

Instead of seeking the least restrictive measures of censorship, like, for example, marking out the offensive language, they refused to deliver the publication summarily citing to TDCJ-ID policy and procedure BP-03.91, the same rule used to reject delivery of biblically-based religious materials sent to me by my sister.

I appealed the denial to the Director's Review Committee (DRC) whose address is PO Box 99, Huntsville, TX 77342-0099. On 3/29/17 I received the "DRC Approved/Upheld Denial on 3-28-17." However, that denial was not signed so I have no idea who is personally responsible and accountable or if this is - as commonplace - a summary, arbitrary, and capricious disposition of my appeal, similar to the practices generally experienced when using the TDCJ-ID administrative grievance process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Nevertheless, I will not be receiving the publication, and, notwithstanding my notice of anticipated litigation to prison authorities, am notified that "the publication will be destroyed within 60 days of the initial denial." And, again, I am not notified of the identity of the person(s) who will engage in this illegally destructive and criminally culpable conduct designed to deny and impede my rights both to the publication and access to the courts. Thus far, my efforts to report the criminal acts and conduct to civilian law enforcement authorities and the State and Federal prosecutors' office under Texas Penal Code, Section 39.04 and Title 18 U.S. Code Section 242, have proven to be futile.

Accordingly, I am asking you to engage your expertise and resources in the litigation of this unlawful censorship to which you have standing to complain and request that you name me as a complaining party litigant. The proper venue is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sitting at Tyler, Texas.

I will at all times make myself available to you and to any legal representative whom you choose. I retain all evidence of my claims but, as I'm sure you know, is subject to confiscation, loss and destruction by prison officials and their employees.

In closing, I am reminded of a passage I read somewhere. "Acts without words are open to all kinds of interpretation and words without acts are hollow promises [or just lies]," The ball is now in your park. I need your help. Anxiously awaiting your response.

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

12 March 2017

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 54

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to a Letter to Publisher from Doug Pardue, notifying MIM Distributors of the disapproval of Under Lock & Key No. 54, Jan/Feb 2017. While the original letter is dated 23 February, it was not mailed until 3 March and just arrived here this week. The reason given for the censorship was that the “Last paragraph [on p. 14] advocates for prison violence if necessary.”

The article overall promotes the avoidance of violence. The recognition that pacifism is not appropriate in all situations is certainly something the NCPDS agrees with. NCPDS staff regularly resort to violence “when necessary.” Therefore the mere mention that violence is necessary sometimes should not be a reason to censor the printed words in Under Lock & Key. I am requesting a review of this decision and that you please deliver the newsletter in question to the subscribers held by NCDPS.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter,

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

12 March 2017

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 54

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to a Letter to Publisher from Doug Pardue, notifying MIM Distributors of the disapproval of Under Lock & Key No. 54, Jan/Feb 2017. While the original letter is dated 23 February, it was not mailed until 3 March and just arrived here this week. The reason given for the censorship was that the “Last paragraph [on p. 14] advocates for prison violence if necessary.”

The article overall promotes the avoidance of violence. The recognition that pacifism is not appropriate in all situations is certainly something the NCPDS agrees with. NCPDS staff regularly resort to violence “when necessary.” Therefore the mere mention that violence is necessary sometimes should not be a reason to censor the printed words in Under Lock & Key. I am requesting a review of this decision and that you please deliver the newsletter in question to the subscribers held by NCDPS.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter,