Prison Banned Books Week: Being in Jail Shouldn’t Mean Having Nothing to Read

EFF update
3 months 1 week ago

Across the United States, nearly every state’s prison system offers some form of tablet access to incarcerated people, many of which boast of sizable libraries of eBooks. Knowing this, one might assume that access to books is on the rise for incarcerated folks. Unfortunately, this is not the case. A combination of predatory pricing, woefully inadequate eBook catalogs, and bad policies restricting access to paper literature has exacerbated an already acute book censorship problem in U.S. prison systems.

New data collected by the Prison Banned Books Week campaign focuses on the widespread use of tablet devices in prison systems, as well as their pricing structure and libraries of eBooks. Through a combination of interviews with incarcerated people and a nationwide FOIA campaign to uncover the details of these tablet programs, this campaign has found that, despite offering access to tens of thousands of eBooks, prisons’ tablet programs actually provide little in the way of valuable reading material. The tablets themselves are heavily restricted, and typically only designed by one of two companies: Securus and ViaPath. The campaign also found that the material these programs do provide may not be accessible to many incarcerated individuals.

“We might as well be rummaging the dusty old leftovers in some thrift store or back alley dumpster.”

Limited, Censored Selections at Unreasonable Prices

Many companies that offer tablets to carceral facilities advertise libraries of several thousand books. But the data reveals that a huge proportion of these books are public domain texts taken directly from Project Gutenberg. While Project Gutenberg is itself laudable for collecting freely accessible eBooks, and its library contains many of the “classics” of Western literary canon, a massive number of its texts are irrelevant and outdated. As Shawn Y., an incarcerated interviewee in Pennsylvania put it, “Books are available for purchase through the Securus systems, but most of the bookworms here [...] find the selection embarrassingly thin, laughable even. [...] We might as well be rummaging the dusty old leftovers in some thrift store or back alley dumpster.”

These limitations on eBook selections exacerbate the already widespread censorship of physical reading materials, based on a variety of factors including books being deemed “harmful” content, determinations based on the book’s vendor (which, reports indicate, can operate as a ban on publishers), and whether the incarcerated person obtained advance permission from a prison administrator. Such censorial decisionmaking undermines incarcerated individuals’ right to receive information.

These costs are a barrier that deprive those in carceral facilities from developing and maintaining a connection with life outside prison walls.

Some facilities charge $0.99 or more per eBook—despite their often meager, antiquated selections. While this may not seem exorbitant to many people, a recent estimate of average hourly wages for incarcerated people in the US is $0.63 per hour. And these otherwise free eBooks can often cost much more: Larry, an individual incarcerated in Pennsylvania, explains, “[s]ome of the prices for other books [are] extremely outrageous.” In Larry’s facility, “[s]ome of those tablet prices range over twenty dollars and even higher.”

Even if one can afford to rent these eBooks, they may have to pay for the tablets required to read them. For some incarcerated individuals, these costs can be prohibitive: procurement contracts in some states appear to require incarcerated people to pay upwards of $99 to use them. These costs are a barrier that deprive those in carceral facilities from developing and maintaining a connection with life outside prison walls.

Part of a Trend Toward Inadequate Digital Replacements

The trend of eliminating physical books and replacing them with digital copies accessible via tablets is emblematic of a larger trend from physical to digital that is occurring throughout our carceral system. These digital copies are not adequate substitutes. One of the hallmarks of tangible physical items is access: someone can open a physical book and read it when, how, and where they want. That’s not the case with the tablet systems prisons are adopting, and worryingly this trend has also extended to such personal items as incarcerated individual's personal mail.

EFF is actively litigating to defend incarcerated individuals’ rights to access and receive tangible reading materials with our ABO Comix lawsuit. There, we—along with the Knight First Amendment Institute and Social Justice Legal Foundation—are fighting a San Mateo County (California) policy that bans those in San Mateo jails from receiving physical mail. Our complaint explains that San Mateo’s policy requires the friends and families of those jailed in its facilities to send their letters to a private company that scans them, destroys the physical copy, and retains the scan in a searchable database—for at least seven years after the intended recipient leaves the jail’s custody. Incarcerated people can only access the digital copies through a limited number of shared tablets and kiosks in common areas within the jails.

Just as incarcerated peoples’ reading materials are censored, so is their mail when physical letters are replaced with digital facsimiles. Our complaint details how ripping open, scanning, and retaining mail has impeded the ability of those in San Mateo’s facilities to communicate with their loved ones, as well as their ability to receive educational and religious study materials. These digital replacements are inadequate both in and of themselves and because the tablets needed to access them are in short supply and often plagued by technical issues. Along with our free expression allegations, our complaint also alleges that the seizing, searching, and sharing of data from and about their letters violates the rights of both senders and recipients against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Our ABO Comix litigation is ongoing. We are hopeful that the courts will recognize the free expression and privacy harms to incarcerated individuals and those who communicate with them that come from digitizing physical mail. We are also hopeful, on the occasion of this Prison Banned Books Week, for an end to the censorship of incarcerated individuals’ reading materials: restricting what some of us can read harms us all.

Related Cases: A.B.O Comix, et al. v. San Mateo County
Will Greenberg

Square Peg, Meet Round Hole: Previously Classified TikTok Briefing Shows Error of Ban

EFF update
3 months 1 week ago

A previously classified transcript reveals Congress knows full well that American TikTok users engage in First Amendment protected speech on the platform and that banning the application is an inadequate way to protect privacy—but it banned TikTok anyway.

The government submitted the partially redacted transcript as part of the ongoing litigation over the federal TikTok ban (which the D.C. Circuit just heard arguments about this week). The transcript indicates that that members of Congress and law enforcement recognize that Americans are engaging in First Amendment protected speech—the same recognition a federal district court made when it blocked Montana’s TikTok ban from going into effect. They also agreed that adequately protecting Americans’ data requires comprehensive consumer privacy protections.

Yet, Congress banned TikTok anyway, undermining our rights and failing to protect our privacy.

No Indication of Actual Harm, No New Arguments

The members and officials didn’t make any particularly new points about the dangers of TikTok. Further, they repeatedly characterized their fears as hypothetical. The transcript is replete with references to the possibility of the Chinese government using TikTok to manipulate the content Americans’ see on the application, including to shape their views on foreign and domestic issues. For example, the official representing the DOJ expressed concern that the public and private data TikTok users generate on the platform is

potentially at risk of going to the Chinese government, [and] being used now or in the future by the Chinese government in ways that could be deeply harmful to tens of millions of young people who might want to pursue careers in government, who might want to pursue careers in the human rights field, and who one day could end up at odds with the Chinese Government’s agenda.  

There is no indication from the unredacted portions of the transcript that this is happening. This DOJ official went on to express concern “with the narratives that are being consumed on the platform,” the Chinese government’s ability to influence those narratives, and the U.S. government’s preference for “responsible ownership” of the platform through divestiture.

At one point, Representative Walberg even suggested that “certain public policy organizations” that oppose the TikTok ban should be investigated for possible ties to ByteDance (the company that owns TikTok). Of course, the right to oppose an ill-conceived ban on a popular platform goes to the very reason the U.S. has a First Amendment.

Congress banned TikTok anyway, undermining our rights and failing to protect our privacy.

Americans’ Speech and Privacy Rights Deserved More

Rather than grandstanding about investigating opponents of the TikTok ban, Congress should spend its time considering the privacy and free speech arguments of those opponents. Judging by the (redacted) transcript, the committee failed to undertake that review here.

First, the First Amendment rightly subjects bans like this one for TikTok to extraordinarily exacting judicial scrutiny. That is true even with foreign propaganda, which Americans have a well-established First Amendment right to receive. And it’s ironic for the DOJ to argue that banning an application which people use for self-expression—a human right—is necessary to protect their ability to advance human rights.

Second, if Congress wants to stop the Chinese government from potentially acquiring data about social media users, it should pass comprehensive consumer privacy legislation that regulates how all social media companies can collect, process, store, and sell Americans’ data. Otherwise, foreign governments and adversaries will still be able to acquire Americans’ data by stealing it, or by using a straw purchaser to buy it.

It’s especially jarring to read that a foreign government’s potential collection of data supposedly justifies banning an application, given Congress’s recent renewal of an authority—Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—under which the U.S. government actually collects massive amounts of Americans’ communications— and which the FBI immediately directed its agents to abuse (yet again).

EFF will continue fighting for TikTok users’ First Amendment rights to express themselves and to receive information on the platform. We will also continue urging Congress to drop these square peg, round hole approaches to Americans’ privacy and online expression and pass comprehensive privacy legislation that offers Americans genuine protection from the invasive ways any company uses data. While Congress did not fully consider the First Amendment and privacy interests of TikTok users, we hope the federal courts will.

Brendan Gilligan