Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

September 1, 2018

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).

The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”

The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

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).

Please govern yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

Mailing Date of this Decision: September 12, 2018

RE: Under Lock and Key, July/August 2018, #63

This is to notify you that your appeal is late and is dismissed on that basis. As such, it violates Department policy for the reason previously stated.

Policy Office
PA Department of Corrections

September 1, 2018

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).

The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”

The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

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).

Please govern yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

September 1, 2018

North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221

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), dated August 13, 2018, 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 policy D.0109(f). However, the addendum references a violation of section (h) and specifies the offending material as being on page 2. The notice states page 2 “has verbiage that may incite distributive behavior.” Distributive behavior is not a violation of policy D.0109.

A careful review of page 2 of the publication shows no content which remotely meets the alleged objection set forth in the notice. Further, the content of page 2 does not meet any definition of objectionable content as defined by any portion of policy D.0109.

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).

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.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

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