Did Pa. prisons block Worker’s World because of “articles that call for people to join the fight against white supremacy”?

Reader Arne Langstmo passed along this letter, asking, “Can this possibly be legal, if true?”

I asked the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and here was their answer:

Thank you for your email inquiring about the Workers World denial. We completely understand the confusion created and accept full responsibility for the poorly written reason for denial.

First of all, there are NO current issues of Workers World on the DOC Denied Publication list. Inmates have received Workers World in the past and continue to do so. The letter to which you refer was a denial from one State Correctional Institution to ONE inmate. It was a first level denial. Pursuant to our policy, DC-ADM 803, we must provide notice to publishers at the first level of appeal. The letter at issue was to provide the publisher with notice of a denial and the opportunity to appeal. No publications are placed on a statewide ban without review by the Policy Office. This particular issue has not been reviewed yet.

The reason for the denial was grossly inaccurate. The Department of Corrections does NOT tolerate racism in any form and supports policies of equality. The denial was based on language in an article about White Supremacy that was interpreted as a literal call to violence rather than an ideological statement.

We will review the entire issue and make a determination whether the denial should be overturned to the inmate to whom it was denied. Again, the reason had nothing to do with white supremacy other than what was interpreted as a call for a potential violent act.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Prisoners’ free speech rights — including their rights to receive information — are much more limited than the rights of those outside prisons, but they aren’t completely lost; and certainly a viewpoint-based ban on speech because it opposes white supremacy would be unconstitutional. But banning material that calls for violence (even in ways that would be constitutionally protected outside prison under Brandenburg v. Ohio), or that otherwise undermines prison security, is permissible. If the Department response is right that the original letter mischaracterized the situation, and it was the “join the fight” part (with the fight referring to violence) that triggered the prohibition and not the “against white supremacy” part, that should be constitutional.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/03/did-pa-prisons-block-workers-world-because-of-articles-that-call-for-people-to-join-the-fight-against-white-supremacy/