Legal Corner: Censorship Through Publication

by Kallie Barrie, LSPC Summer Legal Intern, UC Law SF

The Federal Bureau of Prisons and departments of corrections in all 50 states and the District of Columbia censor publications for sexual or explicit content as well as content on race and civil rights.¹ According to a 2026 PEN America report, any content that may threaten the security of the institution is legally allowed to be listed as contraband, resulting in more banned books in these institutions than within all public schools and libraries combined.² In California, CDCR has over 500 publications and periodicals listed on the publicly available “Disapproved Publications” list.³ Publications included in this list range from hardcore pornography to ACME brochures; and include literary classics such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale as well as artist biographies like Matisse by Jeane Guichard-Meili.

“Contraband” publications under CCR Title 15 § 3006 are flagged as such for a range of reasons, from “obscene content lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” or sexually explicit imagery to material deemed to be a threat to “legitimate penological interests”.⁴ Corrections officers must state the code section under which the publication they are disapproving is being banned, and for what reason. However, these codes are broadly, inconsistently, and often incorrectly applied based on the vague phrasing of what is implied by “obscene,” “sexually explicit,” or “reasonably deemed to be a threat.” Due to this, the First Amendment freedoms of press and speech rights are being severely and arbitrarily limited not only for incarcerated individuals, but also for the publishers, authors, and others mailing in publications.

One of the most common Title 15 code sections seen on the disapproved publication list that may significantly restrict incarcerated artists’ freedom of expression is an outdated version of the code that claims to restrict sexually explicit material by targeting nudity.⁵ Both Guichard-Meili’s Matisse and Germain Bazin’s Impressionists in the Louvre are cited incorrectly under (c)(17)(A) for nudity in Title 15. As the code stands now, § 3006(c)(17), which states “[m]aterial that is reasonably deemed to be a threat to legitimate penological interests,” has nothing to do with nudity or sexually explicit content, nor does it contain any subparagraph (A).⁶ However, prior to the 2024 edits of Title 15, § 3006(c)(17) formerly read to exclude “[s]exually explicit images that depict frontal nudity,” specifying in subparagraph (A) “including the exposed female breast(s) and/or genitalia of either gender,” but this has been edited and moved to Section (c)(16)(A)(1) and (2) as of 2024.⁷ Meaning the cited code on the Disapproved Publications list is inaccurate and incarcerated people, publishers, and those mailing in publications are receiving inaccurate information as to why publications are being censored.

The broad application of these restrictions is especially problematic. The same code sections that flag the exposed breasts in Matisse and Impressionists in the Louvre as “contraband” would result in the ban of a brochure issued by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States as contraband because the figure of Truth is featured with an exposed breast.⁸ This section could also result in the ban of medical brochures detailing how to conduct a mammogram for early detection and screening of breast cancer, as this would also depict fully exposed breasts. According to a 2018 study by the National Library of Medicine, incarcerated women are already at an increased risk for health problems compared to their non-incarcerated peers; increased access to screening resources and early detection would alleviate that.⁹ Allowing the arbitrary limitation of people’s First Amendment rights not only restricts access to the possession and creation of art for our incarcerated loved ones and community members, but it places further risks on their physical and mental health. Per Frederick Douglass, “no right was deemed by the fathers of the government more sacred than the right of speech,” and through the censorship of these publications, this right has been severely limited.¹⁰

The grievances and appeals process relevant to mail and publications is governed by Section 3137 of Title 15. Those incarcerated, the publishers of these publications, and those mailing the publications to incarcerated people are eligible to file administrative grievances within the CDCR if it is believed that a book or publication has been wrongfully withheld as contraband, however the process varies slightly depending on who is filing the grievance. Individuals in CDCR custody whose periodicals are withheld must submit Form 1819 within 60 days of the block. It may be requested that the book be returned to sender or placed under a nondestructive hold through the reviews process to determine the cause for the contraband hold. A grievance may be filed under Section 602 at the same time if the administrative appeals process would like to be started. Those sending a publication, whether the publisher or the sender themselves, can write directly to the Director of the Department of Adult Institutions (DAI) if they are attempting to appeal a systemwide ban. If simply contesting a decision at a singular institution, then the appeal should be directed to the Warden of the institution and elevated to the Director of the DAI if unsatisfactorily resolved after 15 business days.¹¹

1.  Bert Gambini, Author of PEN America Report on Prison Book Ban Speaking at UB, UBNow (Apr. 21, 2026), https://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/stories/2026/04/libraries-prison-censorship.html. (Publications banned on race and civil rights are often marked as contraband under the pretense that they will incite violence through the disruption of social order within institutions or through affiliations with “security threat groups.”) ↩︎
2.  Id. ↩︎
3.  Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., Disapproved Publications, Family & Friends Services (last visited July 24, 2026). ↩︎
4.  Cal. Code Reg. Tit. 15 § 3006. ↩︎
5.  In 2024 Cal. Code Reg. Tit. 15 § 3006(c)(15)-(17) went through a renumbering so many publications on the CDCr list are inaccurately tagged if flagged as contraband under these code sections. ↩︎
6.  Cal. Code Reg. Tit. 15 § 3006(c)(17) (2026). ↩︎
7.  Cal. Code Reg. Tit. 15 §§ 3006(c)(17) and 3006(c)(17)(A) (2023). As of 2024 Cal. Code Reg. Tit. 15 § 3006(c)(16)(A)(1) and (2) state “[t]he fully exposed breast that appears to be female,” and “[t]he genitalia of any gender.” ↩︎
8.   Office of the Curator, Supreme Court of the U.S., “Self-Guide to the Building’s Interior Architecture” (May 2022), p. 15. https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/InteriorBrochureWebVersion_FINAL_May2022.pdf. ↩︎
9.  Michelle L. Pickett et al., Breast Cancer Risk Among Women in Jail, 7 BioResearch Open Access 139 (2018). (Cal. Code of Regs § 3006(c)(16)(B) maintains an exemption for allowed sexually explicit images that includes departmentally purchased or acquired educational, scientific, or medical artistic materials, books or guides, but these are subject to approval by the institution head or a designee on a “case-by-case basis.” This may allow for medical brochures that depict full frontal nudity as described to be allotted, but by discretion of prison administrators.) ↩︎
10.  Frederick Douglass, A Plea for Free Speech, Nat’l Const. Cent. (December 3, 1860), https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎
11.  Cal. Code of Regs. Title 15 § 3137(c). ↩︎