Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

September 1, 2018

Arizona Department of Corrections
Office of Publication Review
1601 West Jefferson Street
Mail Code 481
Phoenix, AZ 85007

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

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) 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 DO 914.07, section 1.2.3. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable. We object to such failure to clearly state with specificity the location and content of the alleged objectionable material.

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).

Further, the notice, without page references, does not meet the scrutiny required by clearly established federal case law. A more definite statement of the objectionable content is required. This letter serves as our demand for such a more definitive statement.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, this constitutes direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law. This is further supported by the censorship of ULK issues 61and 62 under the same pretext.

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

Arizona Department of Corrections
Office of Publication Review
1601 West Jefferson Street
Mail Code 481
Phoenix, AZ 85007

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) 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 DO 914.07, sections 1.1, 1.2.4, 1.2.8 and 1.2.16 . However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable. We object to such failure to clearly state with specificity the location and content of the alleged objectionable material.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, this consituttes direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law. This is further supported by the censorship of ULK issue 61 under the same pretext.

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.

May 14, 2018

Arizona Department of Corrections
Office of Publication Review
1601 West Jefferson Street
Mail Code 481
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Re: Request Appeal of Under Lock & Key March /April 2018 Issue 61

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) 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 DO 914.07. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable. We object to such failure to clearly state with specificity the location and content of the alleged objectionable material.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.

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

I'm appealing the decision to withhold mail from MIM distributors. I received a notice from the Office of Publication Review on 3-24-16 that my mail will be "excluded".

The following has been "excluded":
- How to form a prison study group - Reason 1.2.8 "superiority"
- MIM Theory #4 1993 - Reason 1.1 "detrimental" 1.2.8 "superiority"

I have reason to believe the reasons given for censorship o fmy mail is absurd, generalized, conclusory bias and I would like a detailed expanation given specific details on the exact rules these pulications violate and why.

I have also been notified by MIM that other literature they sent was simply returned to them by prison staff, after it arrived, marked "contrary to prison regulations." I never received any notice of these items and this is illegal. See Bonner v. Outlaw, 522 F.3d 673 "A prisoner must receive notice fro any mail that is rejected, and such notice shall state the reason for denial."

Also see Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 concerning by above appeal "wardens may not reject a pobulication 'solely because its contents is religious, philosophical, political, social, sexual, or unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a sbuscription separately."