Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

(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: Pgs 1 + 6 contain information detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes

Check one or more reasons for denial and cite page number of objectionable material.
[checked] (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: Reason c Pages 1+6 contains information detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal? Yes 9/11/15

DRC Upheld the denial on 10-1-15 (no employee signature given)

Does the offender wish to appeal the decision? Yes.

Denied: Multiple copies of a letter (19)

Received: 2 letters given to offender

Does offender wish to appeal the decision?Y Yes 8/25/15

The DRC has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejection of preprinted forms of a letter (16) [sic] received in contradiction with BP-03.91, Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules.

...

It is the decision of the DRC to uphold the Unit rejection of the above mentioned item(s).

It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(m).

The department 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 rejeted 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