Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

December 11, 2017

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

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.

The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.

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 and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

December 11, 2017

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

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.

The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.

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 and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors