Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Greetings,

We received a letter from the Office of Publication Review dated August 23, 2022 regarding our newsletter Under Lock & Key Number 78.

I am writing to appeal the decision to censor our newsletter. No page number or content is provided to justify the reason of "Safe, Secure and Orderly Operation of the Institution." So all I can say to justify our appeal is that there is nothing in our newsletter that promotes activity that is a threat to safety or security. Our newsletter has helped many prisoners reform themselves and express themselves with words instead of fists. While our newsletter is critical of the abuses experienced by many in prisons across the country, the state cannot legally censor its constituents for critiquing state actions.

Sincerely

MIM Distributors

Good Morning:

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry - Office
of Publication Review is responding to your appeal of the exclusion of
Under Lock & Key, Issue 78, Summer 2022. The issue was withheld at the
complex level pursuant to Department Order 914. You may review this DO
online at www.corrections.az.gov.

DO 914 deems certain publication content contrary to ADCRR’s legitimate
penological interest to “assist with the rehabilitation and treatment
objectives, reduce sexual harassment and prevent a hostile work environment
for inmates, staff and volunteers…..” see DO 914.07 1.1. Such content is
Unauthorized Content as defined in the DO. The publication at issue here
contains Unauthorized Content pursuant to the provision set forth above and
the issue was withheld and contrabanded by the complex.

The complex is the first level of publication review. You and inmate
recipients were subsequently notified of the opportunity to appeal.

The Office of Publication Review reviewed this publication on appeal and
upheld the complex exclusion under the following DO 914 subsections

7.2.3 Depictions or descriptions that incite, aid, or abet riots, work
stoppages, means of resistance, or any other behaviors that may be
detrimental to the safe, secure and orderly operation of the institution.

7.2.8 Content that is oriented toward and/or promotes racism and/or
religious oppression and the superiority of one race/religion/political
group over another, and/or the degradation of one race/religion/political
group by another.

7.2.20 Any publication or part of a publication that, although not
specifically set forth herein, may otherwise be detrimental to the safe,
secure, and orderly operation of the institution.

The pages identified containing such content are throughout, including, but
not limited to, pages 1, 2, 4, 9, 16.

Pursuant to DO 914 § 6.13 “….The Office of Publication Review may cease
removing or redacting unauthorized content when the practice places an
unreasonable burden on resources due to the volume of incoming mail,
publications, the required redaction or removal of unauthorized content and
the dissemination thereof in redacted form.”

All publications, including those that are part of a title or series, are
reviewed on an individual basis, and rejection of one or several issues
does not warrant rejection of subsequent issues unless those issues contain
Unauthorized Content as defined in DO 914 (see DO 914 § 6.10).
Accordingly, any future issues of Under Lock & Key that are addressed to an
ADCRR inmate will be reviewed on an individual basis to ensure content
meets the standard and guidelines set forth in DO 914. In the event of any
future first level exclusions, inmate subscribers or MIM may appeal, and
provided appeals are timely, OPR will conduct a second review and determine
whether reasonable redactions may be accommodated (DO 914 § 6.13). This
deliberative process is critical to facilitate ADCRR’s legitimate
penological interests in maintaining safe, secure, and orderly operation of
its prisons.

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."