Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

The reason Under Lock and Key has been rejected is: "The publication contains information on inmates and petitioning to support inmate food strikes and has been determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution."

I noticed that the rejection notice they are sending you gave you 20 days from receipt to appeal, but that the cheaters dated the rejection letter which was given to me today, 10 April 2015, talking four days off the clock for me. Not much time for me to reply.

#63 was denied to me which of course I filed the proper grievances that I needed to but I never heard nothing back and getting anything done like that is very hard on this unit I'm assigned to.

March 5, 2019

Missouri Department of Corrections
Deputy Division Director
2927 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 65

[Prisoner XX]

To Whom It May Concern:

We have been notified of censorship by a prisoner in the custody of Missouri Department of Corrections of issue 65 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key. Our notification of censorship was received from a prisoner, not the Missouri Department of Corrections.

As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012).

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 PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

We demand the Missouri Department of Corrections provide notice as to the publication censored and most importantly detailed reasons for such censorship with specific references to the material found to be objectionable. We reserve our right to appeal any censorship of ULK upon receipt of said notice.

We also have reason to believe that the Missouri Department of Corrections is excluding all issues of Under Lock & Key pursuant to a “blanket ban” on the publication. As you are aware such a “blanket ban” has been found to violate a publisher’s rights to due process. If this in fact the case, we demand the Missouri Department of Correctios cease such a “blanket ban” immediately. An individualized review of the content of each issue of a publication must be reviewed prior to it being censored. Lane.

The reason cited for the censorship was “anarchy and rebellion against government authority.” May we remind you that such a broad-based vague response is unconstitutional. Given this reason for censorship any book or article concerning the American Revolution must be banned. Please provide a copy of all publications pertaining to the American Revolution banned for this reason. This request should be considered a request for open records under Rs Mo. 610.010 et seq.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide notice, we have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 55 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

I am in receipt of and have reviewed your written correspondence requesting to appeal the Department of Correction's decision to censor the publication Under Lock & Key, Issue #65.

The publication was correctly censored in conjunction with our censorship policy. Content in the publication promotes, incites, advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against a government authority.

Sincerely,

Alana Boyles, Director
Division of Adult Institutions