Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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,

On the 17th of February 2017, after experiencing censorship by the officials here at Florida State Prison. A publication in which I were to receive was rejected (Under Lock & Key January/February 2017, no54) for reasons as stated. "Page 11: Encourages riot" and "page 13: describes riot." (A copy of DC5-101 is attached).

If the page stated above were to be "thoroughly" and "properly" assessed it woudl reveal that the decision put forth to reject mentioned publication was on exaggerated response to any true concern for security matters. And in addition, in the absence of penological concern. It will further illuminate that the true intent of stated articles were taken out of context. The rejection of the publication (as well as twenty six of the last twenty eight) in full were applied by officials own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and to suppress unwelcome criticism. It was more so determined by a preassumption of the critical nature of the newsletter as a whole that prompted and has been prompting these decisions this is an appeal of the rejected publication, and asking that a further assement is put into effect to verify and justify the trure threat of articles on pg11 and 13.

Your administrative appeal has been reviewed and evaluated. You appeal the impoundment of the following publication: Under Lock & Key, No. 54. January/February 2017.

On March 08, 2017 the Literature Review Committee reviewed the subject matter content in question submitted by the institution. It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(g)(m).

The departmnt may prohibit admission of materials or publications if they are determined to be detrimental to the safety, security, order or rehabilitative interests of a facility or would create a risk of disorder at that facility. Chapter 33-501.401, requires that publications be reviewed and a determination made by one institution. The determination made by that institution affects all other institutions; however, as a result of an individual institution's determination, all impounded publications are reviewed and either approved or rejected by the department's Literature Review Committee as required by rule. Therefore, the final determination is made by the department's Literature Review Committee and not by an individual institution or warden.

Based on the above information your administrative appeal is denied.

S. Milliken

(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 disruption such as strikes, riots or security threat group activity.

Remarks: Page 13 contain information that could cause a prison strike and prison disruption

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? yes