Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Can you tell me which article or articles were deemed inappropriate?

Article: If XXXXXX Lives Matter, Don't Integrate into Amerikkka

August 18, 2018

Kentucky Department of Corrections
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
UNKNOWN PUBLICATION


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Notice of Unauthorized Mail (notice) for a publication sent by MIM(P). The notice states a book was sent “not directly from publisher or authorized distributor”…”per IA.”

In the past few months MIM(P) has sent to Mr. XXX only Under Lock & Key, a bi-monthly newsletter published by us, and the Fundamental Political Line of MIM(Prisons) pamphlet, also published by ourselves. Federal case law regarding publications to prisoners is clear we are a publisher.

You indicate that no further action is necessary on our part. You are incorrect, and this is a misstatement of the law as it exists in regards to prison censorship. 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).
Your failure to properly identify the publication which was censored serves to deny us, as the publisher, an adequate opportunity to challenge the censorship.

You must provide us with the title of the censored publication and a meaningful opportunity to contest such censorship. Neither of which you have done to date.

Failure of the Kentucky Department of Corrections to adhere to federal law as clearly set forth in numerous district and circuit court opinions and the continual violation of our constitutional rights will subject you to possible legal action.

We encourage you to review the publication again, as you will clearly see that is published by MIM(P). Further, we demand you deliver such publication to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

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 May/June 2018 Issue 62

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, sections 1.1, 1.2.4, 1.2.8 and 1.2.16 . 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 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, this consituttes 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 issue 61 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.