Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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

(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

Retirned because:

8. The issue presented is not grievable. DRC

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

September 13, 2015

RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and ULK45

Dear Ms. Morrison,

This letter is in response to notifications received by prisoners throughout the Florida prison system regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and 45 . The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered. As you know, many prisoners throughout the Florida system were affected by this decision but because Florida refuses to follow it's own rules and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process requirements and notify us each time mail is rejected we have only received notifications of a few instances directly. As you know from previous correspondence, we have an ongoing problem with Florida prisons failing to notify us of denial of our publications. I am once again insisting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

Regarding the reasons for denial, the vague "threat to security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person" continues to be the justification. For ULK 45 a few prisons made a cursory attempt to justify this decision by listing page numbers that were found to violate Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401. While we're pleased to see Florida DOC attempting to follow it's own policies by actually providing some reasons for impounding Under Lock & Key, the items listed can not be construed as a threat to security. This includes:

1. "PG 5,9,10 Is ULK too Hardcore for the DOC by a FL Inmate" This was a report about Florida censoring ULK. It's interesting that reporting on this censorship is now justification for further censorship. Can you please explain how this reporting is a threat to security and good order?

2. "PG: 12 Payment by stamps" There is a request that prisoners send in stamps to MIM(prisons) to cover the cost of the free distribution of ULK and other literature they want. But we are clear that they should only do this where institution rules allow. And surely you can not really suggest that this request is a threat to security?

3. "Front cover: STG Symbols." On the cover of this publication there was artwork that read "Each One Teach One" representing the educational goal of this issue of ULK which was focused on promoting education and study within prison. Does the FL DOC claim that education is a threat to security? Or perhaps it was the hammer and sickle that the FL DOC has now classified as an STG Symbol? We request that you specify exactly what was an STG symbol on the front cover.

The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable. The ongoing censorship of Under Lock & Key by the Florida DOC is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. The employee who reviewed this publication and the Literature Review Committee may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.

This letter is a formal request for appeal of these denials. Should you once again decide to uphold the censorship, we formally request that you provide a clear response regarding the reasons for denial of ULK44 and ULK45 to prisoners in Florida.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

September 13, 2015

RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and ULK45

Dear Ms. Morrison,

This letter is in response to notifications received by prisoners throughout the Florida prison system regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and 45 . The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered. As you know, many prisoners throughout the Florida system were affected by this decision but because Florida refuses to follow it's own rules and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process requirements and notify us each time mail is rejected we have only received notifications of a few instances directly. As you know from previous correspondence, we have an ongoing problem with Florida prisons failing to notify us of denial of our publications. I am once again insisting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

Regarding the reasons for denial, the vague "threat to security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person" continues to be the justification. For ULK 45 a few prisons made a cursory attempt to justify this decision by listing page numbers that were found to violate Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401. While we're pleased to see Florida DOC attempting to follow it's own policies by actually providing some reasons for impounding Under Lock & Key, the items listed can not be construed as a threat to security. This includes:

1. "PG 5,9,10 Is ULK too Hardcore for the DOC by a FL Inmate" This was a report about Florida censoring ULK. It's interesting that reporting on this censorship is now justification for further censorship. Can you please explain how this reporting is a threat to security and good order?

2. "PG: 12 Payment by stamps" There is a request that prisoners send in stamps to MIM(prisons) to cover the cost of the free distribution of ULK and other literature they want. But we are clear that they should only do this where institution rules allow. And surely you can not really suggest that this request is a threat to security?

3. "Front cover: STG Symbols." On the cover of this publication there was artwork that read "Each One Teach One" representing the educational goal of this issue of ULK which was focused on promoting education and study within prison. Does the FL DOC claim that education is a threat to security? Or perhaps it was the hammer and sickle that the FL DOC has now classified as an STG Symbol? We request that you specify exactly what was an STG symbol on the front cover.

The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable. The ongoing censorship of Under Lock & Key by the Florida DOC is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. The employee who reviewed this publication and the Literature Review Committee may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.

This letter is a formal request for appeal of these denials. Should you once again decide to uphold the censorship, we formally request that you provide a clear response regarding the reasons for denial of ULK44 and ULK45 to prisoners in Florida.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

(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: pages 1 + 6 contains informaion detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes

(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

(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: Pg 1, 6 contains information detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? No

Form Filed: TDCJ Publication Review/Denial Notification

(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? No

(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 contains information on detailing prison strikes

(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 contain information detailing prison strikes.

(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: pages 1 and 6 contain information detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes

(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

(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: Pages 1 + 6 contain information detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes

DRC upheld the denial on 10/1/15

The DRC has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejction of blank grievance form mailed from ...

It is the decision of the DRC to RVERSE the Unit denial of the above metioned item(s).

The DRC has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejection of blank grievance form mailed to you from...

It is the decision of the DRC to REVERSE the Unit denial of the above-mentioned item(s)