吃瓜大本营

UPDATE: On June 18, 2019, the Arizona Department of Corrections responded to the ACLU鈥檚 letter and confirmed that Chokehold: Policing Black Men will now be allowed into its facilities.

For many people behind bars, books can be a lifeline to the outside world. In the of poet, attorney, and former prisoner Reginald Dwayne Betts, 鈥淏ooks weren't really magic when I was a child, they were just something that I [enjoyed] reading. I thought it was important, but when I got locked up it became magic, it became a means to an end.鈥�

Prisons are not, and should not be, just punitive institutions. They should also be rehabilitative, which becomes especially clear when you consider that of incarcerated people will return to their communities. If prisons and jails take rehabilitation seriously鈥攁nd people behind bars are to have genuine opportunities to build a foundation for when they leave鈥攁ccess to educational material is critical. Books provide one of the few opportunities for self-directed education, entertainment, and self-improvement at virtually no expense to the government.

That鈥檚 why the Arizona Department of Corrections鈥� (ADC) recent ban on Paul Butler鈥檚 book, 鈥�,鈥� is so misguided. The ADC claims that allowing prisoners to read the book would be 鈥渄etrimental to the safe, secure, and orderly operation鈥� of its prisons, but that is absurd.

Butler, a former federal prosecutor, uses the 鈥� a deadly tactic used by police officers to force people into submission 鈥� as a metaphor to explore the history and practical implications of racial oppression within the U.S. criminal justice system. 鈥淐hokehold鈥� provides a guide for Black men who may encounter the criminal justice system, evaluates tactics used in social movements to promote reform, and charts a path for a safer and more just society. Prison, Butler argues, is not the answer.

And yet, nothing in the book is even remotely dangerous. In fact, Butler describes 鈥渧iolence against police officers, or any other persons鈥� as 鈥渦njustified, on moral grounds and because it would hurt the movement.鈥�

As we explain in our demand letter to the ADC, this ban is not only unnecessary and inhumane 鈥攊t鈥檚 also unconstitutional. ADC officials cannot deny prisoners access to a book simply because it is critical of prisons.

The First Amendment protects both the rights of prisoners to access information and the rights of people in the outside world to communicate with people who are incarcerated. Any attempt to restrict these rights must be reasonably related to achieving the prison鈥檚 legitimate goals, and the has prohibited restrictions that represent an 鈥渆xaggerated response鈥� by prison officials. Banning a book about the social and institutional forces that shape prisoners鈥� own lives is exactly the kind of 鈥渆xaggerated response鈥� the Supreme Court was worried about.

Indeed, this is not the first time ADC has unconstitutionally prevented Arizona prisoners from accessing educational material. In March of this year, a that ADC鈥檚 ban on written and visual depictions of sex violated the First Amendment because it was 鈥渘ot rationally related to its stated goals of rehabilitation, reduction of sexual harassment, and prison security.鈥� The court highlighted the fact that the censored material addressed allegations of sexual harassment and assault which occurred in prison. In the same way, 鈥淐hokehold鈥� speaks to prisoners鈥� very situation of incarceration.

ADC鈥檚 rationale implies that well-informed prisoners are inherently dangerous. The irony is that ADC鈥檚 overreaction is evidence of 鈥淐hokehold鈥檚鈥� hypothesis 鈥� that the criminal justice system is designed to punish Black men.

Censoring books isn鈥檛 just a problem in Arizona. A Georgia jail system one of the strictest bans we鈥檝e seen, preventing prisoners from possessing any books other than a bible. Michelle Alexander鈥檚 鈥淭he New Jim Crow鈥� has been in North Carolina and Florida (though North Carolina lifted the ban a few days after the New York Times story published).

Still, the data show that prison reform is as needed in Arizona as anywhere else. As of 2016, Arizona had the imprisonment rate in the United States. And Arizona鈥檚 criminal legal system has the of imprisoned Latinos and the sixth highest rate of imprisoned Black people.

Restricting access to information about the social and institutional forces that shape prisoners鈥� own lives鈥攊nstead of providing prisons that meet standards of decency and dignity鈥攄ehumanizes prisoners and is a disservice our democracy and society.

So what can be done?

Well, if a prisoner or publisher wants to contest a book ban, they should be sure to read the small print. says that if you appeal, you agree to unlimited redactions of the material in question. This procedure leaves people with no meaningful recourse once a book has been banned. Public outcry 鈥� or a suit in federal court 鈥� may be the only way to compel ADC to reverse its decision.

Since the appeal process is entirely unhelpful, we decided to send ADC a letter and give it a chance to correct its serious misstep. Given the well-established Constitutional protections for access to literature in prison and the relevance of Butler鈥檚 book to those currently incarcerated, the ADC must lift the ban and loosen its own psychological chokehold on prisoners.