Journalism Behind Bars

Journalism Behind Bars

Journalistic work was a prime motivator for the revolution that led to American democracy.^[1] Utilizing newspapers and pamphlets as forums to expose perceived injustice has historically motivated politicians to react and has caused real change.^[2] As newspapers and the world have digitalized, the pervasive influence of journalism has expanded almost everywhere––including behind bars.

The purpose of journalism in prisons is twofold: it illuminates the actual treatment of people who are incarcerated so that political powerholders can reform when needed and gives a voice to the voiceless.^[3]

Permitting people who are incarcerated to report on the stories happening inside of their facilities make the writers meaningful participants “in the decision-making process that impacts them and their communities.”^[4] Creating more transparency in the prison system serves the important function of necessary oversight, especially in the age of mass incarceration.^[5] It also can help to fight harmful stereotypes that lead to the mistreatment of incarcerated people in the first place by humanizing them.^[6]

Employing people who are incarcerated as journalists serves yet another purpose––the prescribed goal of the criminal justice system––it helps with rehabilitation and reducing the recidivism rate. The impact and likelihood of meeting those goals through incarceration is likely attributable to “prison conditions.”^[7] Having a job and access to education while incarcerated has produced “positive” results, with those in such programs finding and maintaining work faster upon release while also earning a higher wage post-incarceration.^[8]

Despite the numerous evident benefits, prison systems have pushed back on producing journalism behind bars. On May 11, 2023, the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) enacted a system-wide policy that severely limited what people who are incarcerated can publish outside of the prison walls and unequivocally banned them from accepting payment for their work.^[9] Even though they rolled back this policy the day after the Gelardi article was published on the New York Focus, the existence and endorsement of such a limiting policy is still worthwhile to discuss because policies like the DOCCS one set a dangerous precedent.^[10]

The policy was not publicized upon adoption and established a “stringent, months-long approval process for people in its custody to publish creative work.”^[11] This stifles creativity and can inhibit the rehabilitative process. Another problem is that creators would be considered in violation if they discussed the crime they were imprisoned for.^[12] For many people behind bars, expressing their actions and emotions through creative outlets is how they process and move forward.^[13] Even attempting to take that ability away from them is unnecessarily cruel and counterintuitive. The policy also characterized creative works with content that falls under one of the broadly banned categories as contraband and possessing it could carry with it additional punishments.^[14] The DOCCS policy used the broad term “creative works of art” and confirmed to reporters at the New York Focus that this encompasses journalism. Although this exact regulation is new, the trend of censorship behind bars is not.^[15] That censorship is permissible when prisons claim they are doing so for security reasons.^[16] In Turner v. Safley, the United States Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment protections extend to people who are incarcerated; still, those rights are limited because prisons and jails can restrict free speech where there is a “legitimate penological concern.”^[17] The ease with which prison administrators can circumvent First Amendment rights, given the exceptions outlined in that decision does not afford people who are incarcerated much protection at all, which is deeply concerning.

It is clearly evident that journalism created by people who are incarcerated is important for a variety of reasons, but at its core permitting journalism reflects the deeply American value of free speech protections. The DOCCS claims that “it was never [their] objective to limit free speech or creative endeavors,” but that is precisely what their policy’s language accomplished.^[18] Legislation and programming must be in place to encourage journalism, and not infringe upon clearly enumerated rights, for its democratic and larger social value.