Prison Censorship: The Hidden Battle Behind Bars

Send us a text

Dr. Debbie Jones triumphantly returns to Lockdown Legacy after successfully defending her doctoral dissertation, sharing the emotional journey that led to her joining the mere 2% of Black women globally who hold doctorate degrees. With raw honesty, she recounts the grueling two-year writing process that culminated in a 242-page, 53,000-word academic achievement focusing on the lived experiences of Black educators facing policies that prohibit discussions of race.

The episode then pivots to examine prison censorship through Troy Chapman's powerful article from the Prison Journalism Project. Remie draws from personal experience as he and Debbie analyze how electronic communication systems in prisons have dramatically increased surveillance without accountability. They expose the arbitrary rules governing everything from photographs to written content, revealing how these restrictions sever crucial family connections and lead to widespread self-censorship among incarcerated individuals. Perhaps most striking are the parallels they uncover between academic censorship and prison communication restrictions—both disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and limiting critical thought.

Dive into this thought-provoking discussion that bridges personal triumph with systemic challenges, and discover why understanding these connected struggles matters for everyone concerned with freedom of expression. Subscribe to hear next week's continuation as Lockdown Legacy further explores firsthand accounts from the Prison Journalism Project.

Support the show

Hey Legacy Family! Don't forget to check us out via email or our socials. Here's a list:
Our Website!: https://www.lockdown2legacy.com
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lockdown.2.legacy
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Lockdown2Legacy
InstaGram: https://www.instagram.com/lockdown2legacy/

You can also help support the Legacy movement at these links:
Buy Me A Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/storiesF
PayPal: paypal.me/Lockdown2Legacy
Buzzsprout Tips: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2086791/support

Also, check out the folks who got us together:
Music by: FiyahStartahz
https://soundcloud.com/fiyahstartahz
Cover art by: Timeless Acrylics
https://www.facebook.com/geremy.woods.94

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode
of Lockdown Legacy.
I'm your host, remy Jones, andtoday, two episodes in a row,
you guys are going to be blessedwith my awesome sauce.
Why DJ Dr Debbie Jones?

Speaker 2 (00:16):
I was going to say good morning, but I guess this
is it's anytime, right.
So good day, good day.
Yeah, welcome back baby.
Yeah, thanks Good day.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
Yeah, welcome back baby.
Yeah, thanks, nice to have you.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yeah, it's good to be back.
It's been a long, long time, soI'm glad to have the space and
capacity to do some of theseepisodes again.
Not that you've been missing mewhile I'm gone.
I mean, you've had Warren andWise and all kinds of folks.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
I think we've all missed you, our listeners, our
guests, especially me.
I'm like a lost puppy, dog,baby.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
I've still been a loyal listener in the background
.
I've got plenty of commute tolisten, but it's good to be back
back in the chair.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
But we appreciate your support.
Speaking of Dr DJ, you want togive us an update about that.
We briefly mentioned it in ourlast episode, but you know.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
I was not the guest so I didn't want to focus on it.
Yeah, I think we've talkedextensively on this podcast,
about this doctoral journey, Isuppose.
So on March 7th I defended thatwith everybody there.
You got to be there, the kidswere there, we had family come.
I had a lot of friends there,some of which listened to this
podcast.

(01:33):
So thank you if you were in theroom with me talking about my
research and this work that Ihave, pretty much head buried in
the sand, worked on for twoyears now.
It is exhausting to write aboutthe same thing over and over
and over again for two years.

(01:54):
I think that probably bookauthors understand what this is
like.
Of course, other people whohave gone through this process
but I mean, in the end, 242pages of 53,000 words have gone
out to the graduate school.
They actually got accepted thislast week, so I am done, done,
done.

Speaker 1 (02:18):
I couldn't be more proud of you.
The repercussions of speakingare lessened, which ties into
this episode.
By the way, I can tell you thatit was also tiring for me to
have to hear every one of those53,000 words, but I do not
regret it at all.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Yeah, it was a long time, but I needed a sounding
board, so thanks for being thatI've become like a what's the
word?

Speaker 1 (02:47):
Not an expert, but I've become like a pretty good
source of knowledge for thattopic, Just because Through
osmosis, yeah, I mean, I listento you, pitch it and perfect it
and you know, you tell me, oh, Idid this and I think I should
change that because of this.
And here's this new piece ofinformation.
I'm like, oh, I did this and Ithink I should change that

(03:08):
because of this.
And here's this new piece ofinformation.
I'm like, oh, yeah, yeah.
So if anybody, I doubt theyever would.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
But if anybody were to ever spark up a conversation
with me on this topic, I'm like,oh, how much time you got, man.
It's a really deep topic.
I think what is interestingabout doctoral work and what
people one of the manymisconceptions maybe about what
you do and what it is is it islike a master's degree.
You learn widely about aspecific topic.

(03:38):
Right, it's a wider knowledgemaking you a master in that
field.
A doctorate is you areobtaining knowledge about
something specific.
So my degree is in educationalpolicy, but that's a deep field.
But to write a dissertation, youhave to write very deeply about

(04:03):
the most nuanced thing of thefield.
So, for example, my topic wasstudying the lived experiences
of black educators inrelationship to policy that bans
, bars or prohibits thediscussion of race.
So I really wanted tounderstand how, if I, as a black
teacher, now had an identitythat was deemed controversial by

(04:25):
policy or law, would thatimpact how I was able to show up
as an educator for my students?
But that's pretty broad.
I then had to narrow it to K-12, only kindergarten through 12th
grade, not higher education.
I had to narrow it to twostates, ohio and Texas.
We had to continue to pull themicroscope down and narrow the

(04:50):
thing so we can write about it,because it can't be that broad.
So I know a lot.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
So you had to take it from a magnifying glass to a
microscope.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah yeah, it's a large amount of information on a
thing, but in the most specificof ways to write about it, it's
not to say that I don't havedeeper knowledge.
You got to hear a lot of this,both in my presentation and just
talking it out.
I really wanted to look at thehistorical concept of this work

(05:19):
to show that, while right now,this anti-DEI rhetoric that we
are now seeing again in 2025 isreally scary for people who hold
those identities, but also thatthis is not the first iteration
or attempt to remove blackpeople from teaching spaces.

(05:40):
That was really important to meto show that post-emancipation,
there was harm done to blackpeople in education.
Post-segregation andintegration, there was harm done
to black people in educationand so many others that I
couldn't even make into my paperthat will show up later because

(06:01):
it's going to be a book.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
So that's exciting.
My favorite quote from yourdissertation was you can speak
to who actually said it.
But you said history doesn'trepeat itself but it often
rhymes.
And I was like you know, I'mjust thinking of all the things
that have come around and comearound again throughout American

(06:22):
history, us history, and we'relike damn, I can just imagine
some like older person, likedamn, we're still fighting that
fight, like no, it's not thesame fight, but I couldn't tell
how you would think that.
But also, when we talk aboutthis pulling a lot of
information and then you knowhaving to focus in on it pulling

(06:49):
a lot of information and thenyou know having to focus in on
it I was the sounding board andI helped.
I don't want to give myself anycredit here.
I was the one that she talkedto a lot and did a lot of the
trial runs when she had to doall of this research.
I mean, when you were stilldoing your coursework, you were
starting to gather information.
So I would say out of the fouryears, I would say three years.

(07:11):
I've had to just guess threeyears worth of gathering
information and figuring outwhat's relevant enough to make
the cut.
And then, after you done allthis three word, three years of
writing.
You say, okay, I have to fitthis whole thing into 20 minutes
.
And I was like 20 minutes.
And when you got it down to 30minutes, I was like that was

(07:33):
great, that was perfect.
You're like now I've got to cutsome stuff and I'm like, well,
that all seemed very important.
And then you got down to like25 minutes and it was like a
grueling thing to cut fiveminutes out.
Yeah, and you were talking sofast.
I was like no, no, wait, yougot to stay on that.
She's like no, this is wherethe bulk of the information
needs to be and we need to focus.
I was like, well, okay, so youknow, I'm not an academic, I'm

(07:59):
an outsider looking in and youknow better than me what's
important.
But from an outsider's point ofview, I'm like that was all
great information.
How do you pick what to cut?

Speaker 2 (08:10):
It was so hard.
I don't know how you pick To me.
I really wanted to well, as youknow.
So, listeners, my research wasqualitative.
So, like I said, which means Ireally focused on the
storytelling, it was veryimportant to me to amplify the
voices of people who wereexperiencing it, not to show it

(08:30):
by number, not to show it by myown insertion, but to show it
from them.
And so I had folks in both thestates of Ohio and Texas.
Ohio because we've had a lot ofproposed legislation but
nothing passed as of today, andTexas because they have a lot of
things that have passed.

(08:51):
Sorry, texas, I know we havesome Texas listeners, so there's
a lot happening in educationfrom the US perspective.
So it was really important forme to center on the voice.
So, at the end of the day, ifit meant I had to cut other
pieces I had written about sothat I could tell all of the
quotes, that's what I was goingto do.
So I leaned in heavy to thatand tried to continue to center

(09:13):
my work around that, and I thinkwe're going to talk about
defense day, but I did that inmy exam part too.
I can share more about thatwhen we get there, but it was
really difficult for me.
I practiced that presentationevery day, at least one time a
day, for a month, which is a lot, because I turned in my full

(09:35):
draft of my dissertation to mycommittee on February 7th and
then I defended on March 7th andpretty much well, then I worked
on it over the weekend.
So, starting on March 10th orFebruary 10th, I practiced it
every day, every day, one time,at least a day for a month, and
it started at like 48 minutes,yeah.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
It became like a thing that needed to be done in
the house.
Like you know, you got thebedtime routine.
You know you clean up thekitchen after dinner and
everything.
And then it was, like you knowwe would we always watch
Jeopardy together as a family inthis household and the kids are
very much into that but it waslike, ok, Jeopardy's over.
All right, babe, come on.

(10:20):
And I'm like all right, youguys know what to do.
Right, like we, the kids, areon autopilot for at least 30
minutes.
I'm going to go upstairs andI'm going to sit in the chair
and listen to you practice andI'm like, oh, yeah, that was
great, I'd see you change thispart and left that out and added
this.
And then it's like, oh, but Ifeel like I need to do this.
Oh, okay, yeah, I think that'llbe cool.
And then you know, all right,kids, let's get ready for bed.

(10:43):
And then we'll come back andlisten to that part one more
time.
And I mean it was a daily thing.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
Sometimes I practiced in the car on the way to work
because I had a full-time job inthis time of life too.
We have four children.
You were definitely a wonderwoman.
It was really stressful.
I mean, every chapter of thiswas stressful to me in different
ways, but I don't know.
This defense haze and themental fog was really

(11:14):
challenging to my workplace, andI think that what was helpful
to me was being really honestand transparent with all of the
people around me, like my boss,like my coworkers, parent with
all of the people around me,like my boss, like my coworkers.
Like, one week out from defenseweek, I am not going to be a
good colleague to you.
I'm not going to respond toyour emails very timely.
I'm sorry.

(11:34):
I just know that my capacity islow and they were all really
great with that.
They took up things that Icouldn't do.
Everybody was tagging in,checking in with me.

Speaker 1 (11:45):
I am glad.
I am so glad that they gave youall that grace, because you
often apologize to me and Idon't know if you apologize to
the children as well but, youalways apologize to me as if you
weren't showing up for thefamily, but I mean, I would like
to say you handled it amazing,because I don't think that they

(12:05):
noticed an absence by you, and Iwould say that, considering how
much work that I know you didand you know also holding, I
mean you say you had a full-timejob, but let's be honest, you
had more than one job you knowat the same time.
Yeah, one job you know at thesame time.

(12:27):
So, knowing how much you hadgoing on, I don't know if I ever
told you this, and if so, I'msure I haven't told you enough
but you did quite a good job inshowing up for the family as
well as juggling all of thosethings, cause I know you had a
job.
You had another job At one time.
You're doing speakingengagements as well and
trainings, and you were teachingat school, right so, and you

(12:48):
were being a good wife.
I mean, I still feel like I gotthe best you know you were.
I mean, to put some personalstuff in there, there were days
where I said I had a hard day atwork and I would come home and
my wife's playing the whole datenight, and we're playing like
video games and and drinking me,needing charcuterie, boards and
stuff, and she's lit candlesand she's done all this stuff

(13:08):
and I'm like where the fuck didyou get the capacity to do this?
I feel guilty, like my day atwork had this.
You know it triggered this andI just instantly started
thinking like I got to step mydamn game up.
Man, this is nuts.
I got to step my game up, sogive you your flowers.
You are amazing.

(13:28):
Thank you.
I mean, I know it was hard.
It was hard, but you did it andmade it look amazing and
effortless.

Speaker 2 (13:38):
I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
It was probably the hardest thing I've done in my
life, just because of the time,even being married to me, I'm
the hardest thing you've everhad to deal with in your life.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
No, I got emotional there for a second, I had to
pause, but yeah, it was.
I mean, now that it is reallydone, I can look back and I
don't know.
I don't know what mentalfortitude existed to make that
happen, but I am.

(14:12):
I think I said it yesterday.
I posted on Facebook because Iwoke up.
So my document was accepted onFriday, which means I don't have
anything else to do.
Everything is submitted.
I just wait for the graduationnow, which is weird, right, like
what am I supposed to do now?
But the piece that I woke upwith yesterday, being able to

(14:39):
reflect on this journey and seethe end of it, it's a gift I
don't know how to receive yet.
Um, cause it still feels Idon't know I'm too close to it
to feel like the race of it isover.
I guess, um, the the push, thehustle culture that was attached

(15:01):
to that, I mean, that's reallywhat it is.
Um, I mean there were a lot oflate nights and a lot of
rewrites and a lot of earlymornings and a lot of taking the
computer to gymnastics practice, taking it to the soccer field,
and I do think that our kidsfelt they maybe didn't feel an
absence of my physical presencemost often, but I know that they

(15:27):
missed me.
I mean, our kids sacrificedfour years of time with their
mom in pursuit of while I pursueknowledge right, so I think
that that's really important toacknowledge that this belongs to
them too.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
And I think they do.
I mean, we do a good job ofexplaining to our kids what's
going on and you know not justthat you're graduating but what
exactly it is that you've doneand why it's a big deal.
So you know, I think theyunderstand the importance of it
and I also know that you placeda lot of importance on the

(16:06):
things you did with the kids.
There were times where I had toput myself in your frame of
thinking.
So when I thought it's not thatimportant, I had to understand
why you thought it was soimportant that we had hot
chocolate or that we had a movienight and we all ate living
room and stuff.
I'm like for me to laugh.

(16:30):
I got to tell you I'm laughingpreemptively.
I would I occasionally joke.
I have to preface that it's ajoke.
You occasionally joke, I oftenjoke.
Okay, there we go, that's betterand when it's something that I
feel like is a privilege andit's something that we can do
anytime, I have to remember thatyour time is limited and your

(16:51):
engagement in this manner islimited, so it's a lot more
important to you, and I often belike we don't have to eat
dinner or, you know, eat dinnerand then have hot chocolate and
ice cream.
Or sometimes we reverse theorder, like it was so important
to have this hot chocolate andice cream moment that we were
like all right, we'll just eatdinner later.

(17:11):
I'm like fuck them kids.
You know, that's my joke.
I would always say like fuckthem kids, we can do that
anytime.
And she'd be like no, no, no, no, like we got to do this and we
got to have this movie night andI, you know, on my work nights
I got a little bed at like 8 30pm.
So when it's like all right,and we'll just stay up and the
kids can stay up till 10, I'mlike all right, sister, like

(17:34):
you're on your own, you know.
But then I would have to likerecall, like this is important
because, and then I would belike all right, let's make this
happen.
You know, I go to like listen,man, there were some times where
I went to bed late and when itwas all said and done and
everything was over and cleanedup, like all right, I'm going to

(17:56):
bed, and I'd just be like soshort and focused, like I gotta
get to sleep because I'm aboutto drive down a road with a
whole bunch of stuff, you know.
But I'll be going to bed like 10, got to get up at 2, you know.
But it was very important thatI facilitated that with you
because I understood that youhave been giving up a lot.

(18:16):
But I say that they don'tprobably notice it that much
because you did prioritize thosemoments.
They were very important and Iknow that they enjoyed it.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
Yeah, before we move on, I want to preface that it is
a joke.
You always say it is a joke,but you're a really attuned dad
and care greatly.
You never really mean that.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
I say it a lot about a lot of different things, but I
never let my kids go without.
No, and you never mean it,you're just being funny, I'll
say it about while I'm puttingsome stuff in the shopping cart.
Kids don't keep needing thesenew boots as I put them in the
shopping cart Like man.
Fuck them kids, but they'regoing to get what they need.
I'm never going to let my kidsgo without.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
Sometimes what they want right Like it's your A lot
of times what they want what youwant them to have.

Speaker 1 (19:14):
You know, it's it.
You want them to have a lot,and so they get what they get,
not through a fit.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Well, I appreciate your sacrifice too, cause it was
a lot for all of us, everybodyin this whole, this whole thing
sacrificed, and I think that wasreally important.

Speaker 1 (19:28):
Um, not to make this about me I think I sacrificed
the most.
I think you very muchprioritize the kids and I
appreciate that, um.
But when I say I sacrificed themost, I think you sacrificed
the most in that regard too,like our relationship.
You sacrifice the most in thatregard too, like our
relationship, I see, because,like I said, I go to bed at 8.30
and you know if you're up like,oh man, I got to write, I got

(19:51):
to write, I got to write.
There were times where I wouldlike roll over and peek an eye
open and our alarm clockprojects the time onto the
ceiling, I'd roll over and belike maybe it's 1230.
What the fuck are you doing,you know?
So when I say, like I said, Iuh sacrifice the most is because
of my own job, I have to go tobed early already, you know,

(20:15):
before this, I go to bed ateight, 30.
You go.
You come to bed at like nine,30, 10, you know.
But to see how many late nightsthat you were still up and I'd
have been asleep for four hoursalready, you know, was like damn
.
So we did have a lot of losttime together, yes, you know,
even if that time was likecuddling in bed while I was

(20:36):
asleep, you know.
But I'm not regretful at all,so don't let me say in that
think that I'm like bitter oranything.
I just want to recognize thatthis had to be endured.
It was one of the components.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
Yeah, we did have to.
We had to let a lot of that go,and I think it was really
important to us in the time thatwe could find together that
it'd be something we both wantedto do, something that we both
spent time in.
We had to co-plan that andschedule it.

(21:14):
Really, I know that that's athing that therapists say a lot
like make sure you schedule timetogether and it's like I
shouldn't have to schedule timewith my significant other.
We had to schedule timetogether and block that
intentionally on our calendarsand honor that time, even if it
meant you had to go to bed lateor get up early or whatever it
was and I had to adjust mywriting schedule.

(21:36):
We had to make sure that we didthat.
Divorce rates are really reallyhigh generally right, they're at
about 50%, but they are extrahigh among doctorate students.
There's a lot of studies outabout that.
That divorces at almost like75%.
It's really high among thisspecific population, which isn't

(22:00):
a huge population.
Not a lot of people go back fora doctorate, so to know that
it's significantly higher amongthat population was important
for us to keep at the forefronttoo.
Like how are we recognizingwhat each other is doing over
this course of four years tocome out better and stronger in

(22:21):
spite of.
You know all of those pieces,so you want to talk a little
about Defense Day and then moveit on.

Speaker 1 (22:28):
So I'll tell you about defense week.
I do not have the best memory,so I'll tell you guys that, but
it was my job to coordinate itall and every step of the way I
felt like I was lighter.
Now just got to put that outthere.
But to make that even worse,like two days before defense day

(22:51):
I ended up getting sick and itwas the most obscure.
Like, oh my gosh, my throatjust feels so dry.
I've drank like three gallonsof water today.
And then I woke up the next dayand was like, ah, my body's like
real sore.
And then the third day I waslike I don't know if I should go
and the look on her face as itsnapped over to me like you are

(23:15):
going Like yeah, yeah, yeah,okay, I'll be there, dug out
some masks out of the closet andstuff, like yeah, it was.
But we got there and the amountof people that showed up was
great.
Man, I got to shout out if youguys are listening, man, shout
out to everybody who showed up,Because I mean, it wasn't like

(23:39):
at like a banquet hall orsomething.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
It was just a classroom.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
This was in the college in a classroom.
This was in the college in theclassroom.
And then we set up shop downthe hall a few classes down for,
like you know, okay, we heardher do her part and now we all
have to go down here and waitwhile she defends with her
committee and like this littleclassroom was packed.
We're not talking about the bigones you see on, like the

(24:04):
auditorium classrooms, you see,but like this was like the size
of like a high school class, youknow, and I mean we, what's
that?
Like 30 people in there yeah, I.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
I sent out 35 invitations um to the defense
and I set up 30 chairs because Ifigured there would be a
percentage of folks not comingthat 30 would be plenty.
There were 28 people that day.
So I was really in awe of thisfull room of people who were

(24:36):
willing to come and support meand I put in my email like it is
a significant investment tocome to Ohio State's campus
because you got to pay forparking, because OSU sold their
park and that's a differentepisode.
Anyway, parking is paid at OhioState campus.
It's huge, it's ridiculous.
Folks got to park far away andwalk.
So to see that amount of peoplecome and support me, knowing

(25:03):
that they could only listen tothe first 25 minutes of my
two-hour defense that was theonly part open to the public
blew me away.
That people were willing to payand walk and listen for 25
minutes was amazing.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
So, like I said, I was sick Shout out to Jacob you
know he was just on our lastepisode with us, but he stepped
up in a major way since I wassick.
I mean I felt so helplessbecause Debbie and Jacob and my
in-laws and everything likeeverybody swooped in and just

(25:45):
started taking over.
Like oh, jeremy's sick Boom.
Like.
Like I was like no, no, I cando this.
So it was done, done, deal.
I could just sit there like allright, I can carry this and put
this in the car, I couldshuttle some people, but like
that's, that's what we have andthat's what we're very
appreciative of.
We've mentioned it a few timeson the podcast.
Our family dynamic is awesome.

(26:09):
I mean, my mom drove two and ahalf hours from Akron.
Like your parents were there.
My sister sent some creations,some confection creations.
I'm going to shout her out onthe podcast separately because
her business is awesome.
Like we got so many complimentsabout the stuff that my mom

(26:30):
brought down with her Shout outto Sugar Bomb Bakery Sugar.
Bomb Bakery in Akron man.
We're going to put the link inthe show notes and everything.
I'm going to look at ourFacebook, our social media and
stuff.
I'm going to start posting herbusiness cards and stuff Because
it was awesome and don't letthe geographic location fool you
.
Like this, stuff can be droppedin the mail and delivered on

(26:52):
time.

Speaker 2 (26:53):
So yeah, so Janelle donated some treats that your
mom brought, which were great.
I was appreciative of that.
Jacob, we've talked a littlebit about her.

Speaker 1 (27:02):
Jacob was probably the biggest supporter man.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
I think that people don't understand.
So Jacob and I were previouslymarried right, and three of our
children I shared with Jacob.
And then we separated and youand I got married and so our
family dynamic is interesting.
But there are no weird feelingsthere in terms of I don't know.

(27:27):
He just stepped up in a waythat was super appreciative.
He stopped at Costco for us theday before he went and got
gluten-free cookies and stuff sothat I could have something to
eat afterwards, and ran one ofthe shuttles, made sure parents
got dropped off appropriately,helped with the kids.
I was greatly appreciative.

(27:49):
There just aren't any hardfeelings there and there's still
a lot of support and I just amgenuinely grateful.
We've heard it at the doctor'soffice when you and Jacob go to
the doctor together.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
Yeah, we do food therapy sessions for our son and
me and Jacob attend thosesessions together and it's great
.
Like the doctor was like wait aminute, so explain this.
And we explained it one timeand she was like that is awesome
.
The lady when I called in theprescription, the lady at the
insurance place, she was likethat is awesome, cause she asked

(28:22):
me why both of our insuranceswere on Right.
So I mean, I know you guys gotyour own relationship, but I can
honestly say that that is avery valuable friendship and I'm
glad that it's not like thetypical, you know, husband,
ex-husband, because we don'tview it as we don't like to say
the word ex-husband.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
It's just got so much negative connotation and
outside of co-parenting we havea friendship.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
So I appreciate that and I appreciate all of the help
that he gave around thisdissertation.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
Well, yeah, obviously I mean because we all just went
to the play that we talkedabout on the last episode.
If you didn't get to listen,you can go listen to us talk
about seeing the lynched amongus together.
We're going to go see anotherthing today, the three of us.
So there's a lot of respect andmutual appreciation.
I think that comes from that.

(29:13):
So big shout out to Jacob.
Big shout out to Jacob.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
Actually, I'd like to inject him into that part about
the sacrifice as well, becausethere were many times where he
took the kids on days where hewasn't scheduled to have them,
just so that we could have timeor so that you could have a
break, right?
So yeah, but I see that we'reat 30 minute mark and we
actually have an episode today,so if you're ready, my final

(29:41):
words are simply congratulations, Dr Jones.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
Thank you, thanks.
I'll just briefly say that fora PhD, at least in the US
context, most often defense Iknow we've used that term a lot
is a two-hour exam period, andso you give a presentation,
portion of that and then, mostcommonly, you have like an hour

(30:05):
and a half of questioning byyour committee to make sure that
the rigor of your exam, thatyour dissertation is not just
defendable, but that you areworthy of being called their
colleague, you are worthy of thetitle, et cetera.
And I really I loved my defense, I had a really great time with

(30:26):
it, I loved all of the peoplecoming and I really strongly
advocated for our kids to bethere.
That's not a pretty commonpractice, at least at my
university within my department,and it was really important to
me because, as we've said overand over again, our kids have
sacrificed too, and I neededthem to see what they were
sacrificing for two, and Ineeded them to see what they

(30:51):
were sacrificing for and Ineeded them to know what was
possible.
There are only 2% of blackwomen globally that have a
doctorate degree and I'm reallyproud to join that 2%.
So I'm going to close withreading my dedication.
Okay, I have a lot ofacknowledgements.
I'm going to put together avideo of those acknowledgements
sometime, you know, so that Ican shout out those people

(31:12):
individually.
But I want to read thisdedication and I know you've
heard it, but I think it'simportant for everybody to hear
and then we can transition.
If that's okay with you, that'sfine with me.
All right, clear my throat.
This dissertation is dedicatedto my husband, remy Jones.
I could not have finishedwithout your unwavering support,

(31:34):
humor and grace.
You were my biggest supporterthroughout, not only this
process, but in every facet ofour lives, through ups downs and
everything in between.
You've been my strength to drawfrom.
I'll continue to always be yournumber one fan.
It is also dedicated to mychildren, ruby, juniper, ivan

(31:55):
and Raylan.
I loved you before I knew youand I can't believe I get to be
your mama.
Thank you for giving me thegrace to grow wiser as we all
grew older, to my perfect family.
Thank you for sacrificing yourtime with me in my pursuit of
knowledge.
I hope to someday repay you.
Until then, please accept thisdissertation as a small symbol

(32:16):
of my gratitude.
I love you.

Speaker 1 (32:19):
Well, thank you so much for that.
Yeah, I made the cut, I madethe credits.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
The big credits right at the top.
So are we ready to take a pausehere and then we can transition
?
Yeah, let's do that.
All right, We'll see you back.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
Listener All right folks, we're back and we're
ready.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
Yeah, today we thought it would be fun to talk
about some things thatincarcerated folks are
identifying as important to kindof bring to the public, and so
I believe you found thisjournalism page.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
Yes.
So this is a page that I oftengo and just read stuff on and I
thought, hey, man, it'd bereally good to kind of highlight
some of these stories becausethey're awesome, some of these
stories because they're awesome.
So I'm thinking that this couldbe a new segment of the podcast
where it's a reoccurringepisode and then we just have

(33:15):
like a new you know subtitle ofwhat we're covering for this
week.
But I figure we just pick twostories off of here and, you
know, highlight them and bringawareness to what's going on.
This is the prison journalismproject, is the website that I
go to a lot and their big thingis they highlight stories

(33:39):
written by inmates.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
this organization is to build a national network of
incarcerated and formerlyincarcerated writers to report
on news, lived experiences andunderreported issues within the
prison system and via theirwebsite.
Their goal is to enrichmainstream media with authentic,
nuanced reporting from theinside, changing who gets to

(34:03):
tell the story of incarcerationin America, which obviously
aligns with who we are and whatwe want to do as a podcast, so
we wanted to bring that to youtoday.
Listener.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
Yeah, I mean because we all know that what you get in
the news may not actually bewhat happened, how it happened.
You know, everything has to beshined from a certain lens, a
certain light dolled up for thepublic to consume.
But we don't want it to bepalatable, we want it to be real

(34:34):
.

Speaker 2 (34:34):
Right, and I think what we also loved about Prison
Journalism Project's mission andwhat they do is that they help
support incarcerated folksdeveloping those writing and
journalism skills throughwritten handbooks and editorial
guidance, as well as publicationopportunities that go beyond
them, including legal guidance,communication, best practices,

(34:55):
glossaries and safety tips.
So I just appreciated thatthere was a depth to what it is
they were bringing to theconversation.
It wasn't just oh, just submityour articles or whatever and
we're going to publish them andpush them through.
There's an actual feedback loopand development process so that
incarcerated folks come homewith skill sets that they can
leverage and continue to dojournalism, which feels really

(35:16):
important too.

Speaker 1 (35:17):
Yeah, and since we have often talked about how
people returning home oftendon't really have all the
resources that they need tosucceed, this seemed like a
really good probably lesserknown resource for personal
development that returningcitizens could utilize.

(35:41):
It's not the typical line ofwork that you would see somebody
go into when they return homefrom incarceration, like usually
, it's just like go get a job.
I need people to know that goget a job doesn't have to be the
convenience store down thestreet.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
Right, but what an interesting thing to leverage.
You talked a little bit aboutthis when you talked with Warren
and Christine about the writingand how important letters are
Like.
Why wouldn't we capitalize on askill set that incarcerated
people have nothing but time todevelop, right?
If they are writing a lotalready, why are we not helping

(36:22):
them to kind of put that intopractice in a way that will make
them money when they can comehome right and find some love in
that too?
So we really appreciated that.
So the first article we're goingto talk about today is prison
censorship goes beyond book bans, and this is an article from
Troy Chapman, who highlights theevolving landscape of

(36:45):
communication censorship withinprisons, particularly focusing
on the shift from thetraditional mail and to
electronic communications.
And while there is amodernization, I guess, of why
e-communication makes more sense, it has led to increased
surveillance, reducing theoversight and impacting the

(37:08):
abilities of incarceratedindividuals to express
themselves freely, which I thinkaligns with some current
rhetoric too, which we're goingto talk about.
Yeah, what did you think inreading Troy's article?
What stood out?
Well, for me it kind of was alike duh moment.

Speaker 1 (37:34):
Like really like in the first paragraph I was like
what the heck?
Why haven't I even thought totalk about this already?
But yeah, like censorship is sohuge in incarceration but it's
like it's something that youexpect, so we kind of I didn't
even think about it.
I mean, I dealt with censorshipfor 10 years and it's like

(37:56):
actually beyond cause, I stillcommunicate with guys that are
incarcerated and I've known itso long that it didn't even dawn
on me to talk about it, right,um, notably for me.
He talked about self-censorshipand I thought that was huge,

(38:18):
but I'm going to save that forlater time.
Okay, we're going to go downthe line.

Speaker 2 (38:23):
So I think what was interesting within Troy's
article was kind of thisdiscussion about how electronic
communication is the norm nowbut that, while it offers
efficiency, there is anincreased security level to that
that is monitored by triggerwords and that type of a thing,

(38:43):
whereas it's expected onincoming mail, physical letters
and I think you've talked aboutthat before, but I'll let you
talk about the process but thatthere's this outgoing scrutiny
that's happening too,particularly on electronic
communications.

Speaker 1 (39:00):
Now, right, so I'll give you a little bit of
backstory or history.
So when it came to censorshipbefore, like prior to the
electronics coming in, it usedto be that there were a group of
people who worked in the mailroom and they would slice open
your letter and they would readit and they would, I mean,

(39:20):
casually browse through it andsay, okay, there's nothing
that's glaring.
And then they would make surethere was nothing physically in
your envelope that would beconsidered contraband and they
would just staple it back, shutand send it to you.
For people who've been doingtime for a while, we know that
was frustrating because oftenthat meant your letter would be

(39:40):
cut in half.
I mean, they were processing somuch mail it was just like open
it up, yeah, okay, shove itback in, and you would end up
with three pieces of your lettertrying to piece it back
together.
But on outgoing mail thatreally wasn't scrutinized too
much unless you were on acertain watch, like they have

(40:07):
here in Ohio.
They have what's called ST stg,which is security gang threat,
and so if you're on stg watchingyou were writing to somebody
who they thought was you know, Idon't know, um, a threat, then
they would read your letter tomake sure, like they would
censor, like gang talk, you know, gang members tend to use
certain words, certain terms andslang, and so if you got mail

(40:29):
coming in that had that stuff,they would censor it.
If you had mail going out, theywould censor it.
If you were in isolation, a lotof times your mail was censored
going out.
The only mail that wasn'tallowed to be censored was legal
mail.
It just had to be opened infront of you by a um, a ceo most

(40:50):
often it was like a sergeant orlieutenant and then they would
give it to you, um, but, like Isaid, nobody really expected
their stuff going out to be, youknow, censored, unless they
were under some type of watch.
If they thought you were, uh,under suspicion of smuggling
stuff in, uh, whether that becontraband drugs, you know,

(41:15):
coordinating some type of uhgathering of inmates, anything
like that then okay, yeah, theywould read your stuff.
But prior to electronics, nooutgoing mail was released.
When electronics came in, therewas this huge annoyance factor
sorry if you hear my bumps, Ijust bumped the table.

(41:36):
There was this huge annoyancefactor because all of a sudden
it was automated, and when it'sautomated it's scrutinized a lot
closer but a lot vaguer, likeanything.
If you put a word in therethat's like a trigger word, it
didn't really say likecontextualize how that word's

(41:56):
used, you know.
It would just be like no, thiswas a word that flagged it and
your stuff would be denied.
For me, the most annoying partabout that and this is still
true to this day when they denyyour stuff, they don't tell you
why.
So the inmate a lot of timeswon't even be notified that they
got something censored anddidn't get it.

(42:18):
If they were, it would just belike hey, you got something and
it was censored.
Like it wouldn't say who it wasfrom.
It wouldn't say what thesubject matter was.
It won't say if it was, youknow, physical contraband.
It wouldn't say if it was apicture.
It wouldn't say like anything,just like hey, you got a piece
of correspondence that wascensored as the sender.

(42:43):
If you're out here, it wouldnot tell you that it never made
it.
If you're out here, it wouldnot tell you that it never made
it.
It just started telling me onthe GTL app that it was accepted
or denied, kind of like readreceipts on your iPhone.
Sure, it just started doingthat.
And I would get pissed off whenme and you took those pictures
with the slate boards with ourkids, oh yeah, with our

(43:06):
back-to-school boards going intothird grade or whatever.
Yeah, we had a slate board andwe wrote on it with a grease
marker and we had each of ourkids do one too.
I'm going to third grade.
My teacher is so-and-so, myfavorite color is this, my
favorite food is that.
Well, each of us in our familydid it and we took pictures of

(43:27):
it and I sent it to some of theguys in prison, I sent it to
warren, I sent it to wise, youknow, I sent it to my dude chad.
And they're all at differentinstitutions and each
institution has their own set ofrules.
Each state has their own set ofrules, and so it was like some
people got it, it was fine, somepeople.
It was like some people got it,it was fine, some people.
It was flagged.

(43:48):
I'm like, why was this flagged?
When I sent pictures to them ofme and you on our motorcycles,
it was flagged.
It was denied.
I'm like, what the heck?
I called the institution.
The institution was like eh, weain't got nothing to do with
that, you got to call GTL.
So I'm like it's your guysrules, though they have to
follow, I guess.

(44:09):
So I called GTL.
I was on hold with him for like20 minutes and this person
finally came and they couldn'ttell me why it was denied.
But they said hey, here's alist of the rules which, by the
way, is not published anywhere.
You can't go to the GTL website, you can't go to the ODRC

(44:32):
website and see this list ofrules or anything.
And I kept getting frustratedbecause I'm like you got to give
me my money back or you got totell me what rules to follow,
and the rules were just soasinine.
I just did a search online righthere and the only state I could
find that published these ruleswas what was it?
Nevada, nebraska, nebraska,nebraska was the only place that

(44:55):
published these rules.
And the rules are so stupid.
I'm going to read them to youbecause they're stupid.
Let's see here.
So this is on the NebraskaDepartment of Correctional
Services website and it sayscriteria to send photos using
GTL.
Screenshots containing thefollowing are not allowed or are

(45:17):
subject to change no hand signs, including peace signs or
middle fingers.
Of course we can understandmiddle fingers, but no peace
signs.

Speaker 2 (45:26):
Or hand signs generally.

Speaker 1 (45:27):
No hand signs at all Waving yeah, this was stupid
because in some of the pictures,like us on the motorcycles, I
was throwing a peace sign.
I couldn't understand why thisphoto kept getting denied.
So no items that depictviolence or illegal activity.
No pictures of visitors withlarge amounts of money.

(45:49):
No items that might inciteviolence or illegal activity.
No nude or partially nude maleor female, including Including
infants, newborns and includingdrawings or cartoons.
No individuals clothed or inpanties, bra, sheer, negligee or
nightgowns, including bathingsuits.

(46:10):
Adults or children um.
No sexual gestures, even whenclothed.
No drug use, including tobacco.
No images of offenders oroffender information.
No images of social media ortext.
Gtl will not refund the cost ofrejected photos.

Speaker 2 (46:31):
Now some of those make sense.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
Some of those make sense.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
I think like particularly protecting kids.
Yeah, those ones I can getbehind, but I think that because
they are not, it's not a personlooking at the images, it is a
computer looking at images andautomatically rejecting.
That's where the complicationcomes in in terms of the

(46:53):
censorship.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
Yep, now I can tell you without having the list in
front of me, remembering back tothat phone call where the GTL
customer service person justread this list to me and they
rambled them off so fast.
I can tell you that list was alot longer than this one, mm-hmm
.
And they told me it's specificto institution.
And I'm like why is this notpublished anywhere?

(47:18):
How do I follow the rules?
And they were telling me ourslate board.
It was denied because you can'tsend any pictures of children
not accompanied by an adult.
And I was like what the fuck?

Speaker 2 (47:33):
But it was also the text.
They said it was because of thetext in the photos.

Speaker 1 (47:37):
So, if you notice, they said no images from social
media or text.
So if you got text on yourshirt, you got text in like
anything you know, especiallynot a social media post that has
text in it or a screen.
Well, in Ohio you're notallowed to send screenshots at
all, right?
So I had stuff get and Icouldn't even figure out.

(47:57):
I couldn't even remember if itwas a screenshot.
I'm like that's not ascreenshot, I don't know.
Apparently they can tell.
But yeah, I was like well, I'mtrying to send pictures from the
kids' school play.
Sure, there's no other kids init, it's just our kid, but it's
not accompanied by an adult.
Pictures of us at the beach, youknow kids in full coverage,

(48:19):
bathing suits, they got floatiesand everything on they're like
nope.
So when you talk about thecensorship aspect and like
that's shitty, just to be frank,because now they've basically
robbed these inmates of a chanceto be part of our family.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Right.
The censorship going in isreally challenging because it
limits what they can see of theworld outside of prison because
of these rules.
I think what's interestingabout Troy's article is the
discussion of censorship on theoutgoing now too, particularly

(49:01):
because of the e-communications.
So Troy, within this article,talks about how he just received
a J-Pay message that says emailcensored.
Reason other no comments, andthere was a lot of fear around
that because an email leading toan investigation can get you
put in solitary confinement.

(49:22):
And so why?
What did I do?
That was threatening, with noexplanation, right, and so they
couldn't have any insight intothat until the prisoner
counselor came back on Mondayand that waiting period of
trying to figure out whathappened and why and then
learning it was just because ofthe use of the term corrections
officer in an article that Troywas writing for publication came

(49:47):
back flagged, and I think thatthat is the increasing threat
and harm is it's not just familycan't communicate anything
that's happening really freelyfrom outside of prison, like to
try to bring them into our world, sharing vacation photos, et
cetera, but also now on the backend of it, incarcerated people

(50:08):
can't freely write and expressthemselves without their
e-communications being stoppedand censored.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
Yeah, I can tell you I'm always the one that is off
topic and expressing personalexperiences, so sorry about that
, but I remember when they werestill fine-tuning J-Pay, when we
had J-Pay before GTO and myemail was flagged.
This was the first time ever,actually, that I had an email

(50:40):
flag going out.
It was the only time actually.
But it was flagged because theperson I was talking to said hey
, so-and-so got locked up,they're in this prison.
And I said man, tell them tosaid hey, so-and-so got locked
up, they're in this prison.
And I said man, tell them.
I said and they flagged itbecause you're not allowed to
write inmate to inmate, right,you know from institutions.

(51:01):
So they thought like, hey, I'mtrying to use this person as a
go-between to send messages andthey flagged it Once again.
They didn't tell me that theyflagged it once again.
They didn't tell me that I hadto really like hunt down the
mailroom sergeant, like what thefuck is going on my mail?
And it took them like doingsome digging on their own side

(51:21):
and then coming to tell me like,oh, this was the reason.
But it's really crappy andpanic inducing when you just
simply get yep first if yourfamily's telling you hey, man,
I've been sending you stuff, didyou get this, did you get that?
And you're like, no, I nevergot word.
Or when you simply get, hey,this was flagged, no reason, no

(51:42):
comments, Like you're like, ohshit, what do I got going on?
Are they watching me?
Are they looking at me?
You can go to the hole, to asolitary confinement in prison
for no reason at all, while theyconduct an investigation.
So if you think like, oh, alleyes are on me and I didn't even
know, that's panic inducing,that's you know whatever.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
I think Troy talks raises a really good point here
too, about how this kind ofcensorship impacts incarcerated
people because they're not goingto try a different method.
So you were reallyself-directed in figuring out
why and how you could like workaround that.
Yeah, I'd take a no for that.
But Troy talks about here andyou've talked about this too

(52:24):
that other people don't havethat same type of motivation.
So he really highlighted, likewhen he talked to his prisoner
counselor, that he was like canI just put it in the USPS?
Like, can I write it and put itin the USPS mail?
Is it going to receive the samecensorship?
And the PC was like no, I don'tsee why you couldn't do that.

(52:45):
So e-communication failed, so hejust wrote it out.
But how many other people aregoing to take that if my quick,
fast, convenient email or youknow whatever letter gets
stopped?
Am I the type of person that'sgoing to pick up a pen and paper
and put it in the mail?
Do I have the resources to doso?
Do I have the stamps?
Do I have the paper?
Do I have the pen, um, to dothat?

(53:08):
And he like.
So it's not just a limitationon censorship, is a limitation
on traditional like writingtools and not being able to take
that communication further.
And who's really going to pickthat up and move the ball
forward?

Speaker 1 (53:23):
Yeah, I mean do you have the resources to try to get
around this?
Do you have the resources tothen write it out and send it
through the mail?
Do you have the time for that?
I'll tell you that thiselectronic email thing, they're
pushing it to be the sole optionof communication and it's often

(53:44):
a monopoly.
You don't have the choice ofgoing with GTL or JPEG or Secure
, or uh, uh, what's the otherone, it doesn't matter.
But you know there's a fewcompanies that do it, but you as
the inmate don't have theoption.
It's whatever the state or thefeds go with on a contract.
Um, I've seen where we've had alot of problems with them and

(54:07):
you just had to endure itbecause they were under contract
.
You know, like, until thecontract runs out, they do a bid
for something else like this iswhat you're stuck with.
Yeah, um, I also know that I'vegone to uh in ohio.
It was the unit manager.
I've gone to a unit manager orI've gone to the mailroom

(54:30):
sergeant like hey, man, you guysare playing games with my mail
and they've pulled it up, whichhe, uh, troy, talked about in
his article.
Like they pull it up on thecomputer screen.
Yeah, I mean, they're lookingat it.
So you got to kind of be boldenough to look around and look
at their screen.
But like we had a good enoughrapport where they spun the
screen around and looked at itwith me and they were like I

(54:53):
don't see what's wrong with this.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
You know, as a you know a lieutenant level staff
member, they're like I don't seewhat's wrong with this.
They have the power to overruleit.
Out of my probably 20 timesthat I've gone in there about
mail, I think that they've onlyoverruled it once.
20 times that I've gone inthere about mail, I think that
they've only overruled it onceand it was because it was actual
need that I got thisinformation.
But for some reason they don'treally like to do that.

(55:18):
I mean, there's a mailroomsergeant who's in charge of that
.
So maybe it's like I don't wantto step on their toes or I
don't want to draw attention tome, because obviously they're
going to know they overruled itand if it becomes a habit or
something they might try to saythere's some type of
relationship there.
I don't really know, but I knowthat it's very defeating when

(55:42):
you keep having this happen andevery time you go in there it's
like let's see what's wrong withthis.
So Troy in his article talkedabout how you begin to
self-center.
You begin to somewhat.
I mean you're talking aboutvery benign things, maybe you
could be talking to your grandma, but now all of a sudden you're

(56:03):
trying to talk in code andstuff like that, like I don't
want to say it like this becauseit'll get flagged, so I got to
draw it out and say it in aroundabout manner or not talk
about it at all, which changesyour message, and that's huge.
When you talk about FirstAmendment rights and there have
been some lawsuits where inmateshave won, because if this is

(56:24):
going to be our sole level ofcommunication, and when you talk
about Troy mentioned, if wewere writing letters through the
usps, the usps is a governmententity and they have oversight.
Yep, well, now jpay and gtl andall these, these are private
organizations.
They don't, they don't have togo through all this government

(56:45):
or uh, oversight, and now it'sjust, you have to accept
whatever their ruling is.
And so this is a big issue.
This is a really big issuebecause it calls into question
do inmates have First Amendmentrights?

Speaker 2 (57:02):
Yeah, I mean I would unequivocally say yes, but I
think that you're right in thatthis broad censorship really is
bringing in this question of isit a violation of constitutional
rights, particularly the FirstAmendment, you know,
guaranteeing that freedom ofspeech component and how far do
those rights extend and at whatpoint are they?

(57:24):
If they ever go away, when arethey reinstated right?
And I think that points to thebigger systemic problems that we
always talk about, aboutincarceration wholly, as this is
not the only right that isconsistently violated for people
who are incarcerated, which,when we continue to take those

(57:46):
things away that arefundamentally given to people as
rights within this country,then it becomes slavery right.
So that's the component that isreally important to me.
You talked about the selfcensorship too.
I think we can expand there aswell that this is something we
see pretty consistently in oroutside of prison, this notion

(58:07):
that well, if they're going toflag in any way, I'm just going
to write it a different way ornot write it at all.
Right, you begin to adapt theway that you work within the
world, and I don't want to justcontinuously talk about my
dissertation or the doctorate oranything like that.
But I found that that was truewithin that research too, which

(58:28):
is very separate of this.
But that legislation, thisanti-DEI stuff happening across
our nation right now, is causingthis overreaction within
institutions to go ahead andcancel all their stuff.
Target is a good example.
Target canceled everything DEIbecause there was a threat of
legislation.

(58:48):
Because there was a threat oflegislation.
So even though it hadn't gonethrough the right legal hoops
and all of the things to becomean actual law at that point it
was the threat of the law causedthis huge self-censorship and
this huge loss of programmingand we are seeing that happen
really widely.
So I think it's not just theindividual level which we're

(59:09):
seeing at the prisons withincarcerated people, like
they're going to flag it anywaybecause I said CO, so I'm just
not going to write it at all orwhatever, right, but that takes
away the public's understandingof what prison experiences are
like, when we're no longerhearing about the people who are
experiencing it firsthand.

(59:29):
Longer hearing about the peoplewho are experiencing it
firsthand yeah.

Speaker 1 (59:32):
So had experiences with some guys that I kept in
contact with after prison that Iwas inside with and I
questioned, like their way ofthinking because it seemed
unstable and unrealistic.
But after having reading thisarticle and kind of connecting
some dots, I'm like I cantotally understand how somebody

(59:52):
would be like that.
And so these people inparticular were kind of like
conspiracy nuts.
They seemed to always beparanoid.
They're listening, they'rewatching.
I got to be careful about this.
I'm like I'm going to fuck down.
You seem a little high, strong,right, you know.
But then when you think of itlike this, like you come from a

(01:00:14):
place where every move and everyaction you do is scrutinized um
, every word you say throughelectronic communication over
the phone is monitored andrecorded.
It's scrutinized.
You got to watch how you saystuff.
And I started thinking about,um, my communication with like
warren and wise and chad and allthat.
Like there's been times wheresomebody's been like hey, man,

(01:00:37):
you know this dude, he makes meuncomfortable bro like what's he
in here for?
I told you guys do that all thetime.
Well then, uh, when I reportback, I know that I can't say
certain stuff, right, so I'msitting here like listing it off
.
Like bro, he's got, you know,two counts of the R word and you
know I was like you can't saythat.

(01:01:00):
If I were to say the word rape,then it would be like, all right
, shut everything.
Now, you know, start watchinghis mail.
For you know, like so I waslike, well, well, you know, uh,
he's, this happened and thathappened.
We're even talking in yourpersonal.
We could be talking about amovie.
You're talking about a movie.
You'd be like, oh so, dude hadto.
You can't say like, oh man, hewent here and killed somebody.

(01:01:22):
Like oh, so I was watching thisdocumentary where this guy came
in here.
And you know, you guys know fromdealing with facebook, you got
to say like unalived orsomething weird.
And it's like damn, I mean hell, the mention of Facebook.
That goes to show that we'reall being censored.
And to some degree it changesyour method of operand to where

(01:01:51):
now it's not just a singleisolated incident but it's your
new norm.
You're always constantlywondering about the words that
come out of my mouth.
You see people that try tospeak their mind, but they have
a public position.
The next thing, you know,they're putting out these public
apologies.
I'm sorry, I didn't really meanwhat I said.
Sorry, I didn't really meanwhat I said, but it's like it's

(01:02:11):
okay to feel that way, it's okayto say that, but if you're
going to offend, even a singleperson can't do it.
So, anyway, I would also like totalk about book bans.
Okay, book bans are a big thingin prison media in general.

(01:02:33):
So, before once again,electronics used to be able to
order CDs, order tapes, movies,et cetera, but books were the
biggest thing and they wouldissue a printed list of
currently banned media and itwas constantly being updated.
And I know that I tried toorder, like books like the 40

(01:02:57):
laws of power banned don't eventry it.
Uh, 33 strategies of war bad um.
I tried to order a book calledhitman it was a fictional book
by rex farrell bad, like, don'teven try, um.
But also music, and music wasthe more controversial one
because it was very vague.

(01:03:20):
Like, I ordered an anthonyhamilton cd and they denied it
because they said it couldincite a riot true story.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
That man with his love lyrics.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
I was pissed man.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
Said, it's hard.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
I'm sitting here like bro Charlene.
Charlene is inciting riots, bro, so it's really controversial
and I don't know what committeeputs this stuff on this list,
like what committee puts thisstuff on this list.
But I know that it isunfortunate that the bulk of

(01:03:57):
this list is made up of blackmaterial, you know.
So you couldn't get even somestuff like roots.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
you can't get the book roots right and I and you
know to parallel what'shappening.
You know, within us contextwe're seeing a ton of book
banning and it's also a lot ofmarginalized identity, authors
and topics like particularlyrace, gender, lgbtq status.
All of those things are beingjust said that and it's not even

(01:04:28):
just school, becauseeverybody's like, well, they
shouldn't be talking about thatstuff in school.
I'm not going to get into thattoday, but generally they are
banning these books in all theseplaces.
But what's different is thatprivate entities have the
ability to push back and putthose books out for the public
to get anyway.
So you can say it's banned, butI can still go order that on
Amazon.
Prison's not like that.
If it's banned, it's banned.
There is no way to get that in.

Speaker 1 (01:04:50):
Right and on a bigger level, outside of the prison
scope, I think it's not justwrong that they ban the stuff,
but the way they label the stuff.
You know to label somethingdivisive when it's something
like your dissertation, likethese divisive concepts, but
like I can't change my race.
I can't change my race, I can'tchange my you know, sexual uh

(01:05:13):
preference or gender identityand stuff.
So it's like now that you'velabeled it this and it's
basically banned, like what doesthat do for me?
Because I'm, I'm it you knowwe're not talking about like hey
, you can't wear that sweatshirtright well, I guess I gotta go
change my sweatshirt.
It's like oh, so I'm to gochange my sweatshirt.
It's like oh, so I'm theproblem.

Speaker 2 (01:05:33):
Well, to your point, it's also things that promote
critical thought.
It's like we don't want you tohave this information, because
what type of problem might thatpose to my power of
positionality if you now havethis information of critical
thought and intellectual growth?

(01:05:55):
Those things pose threat to me,so let's just go ahead and put
it on the banned book list.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
And we've seen with.
I'm not going to bring upanybody's name or any group of
people, but we've seen how thisgroup think takes any bit of
information and they gatheraround it.
So um may not be consideredtrue, but if you say hey, I'm
going to use the anthonyhamilton example um say hey what
was our anthony hamiltonwedding song?

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
it's bugging me.
We talked what, what is it?
I didn't mean to interrupt youlike that, but what is the song
we played at our wedding?
And you got to put me on thespot, right here for all these
people.
Your memory is so good.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
Yep, I was in the middle of saying something.
Go ahead.
So to use the Anthony Hamiltonexample, if you have, say like I
said, you got black people wholisten to Anthony Hamilton, and
then you have the authoritativegroup who says Anthony Hamilton

(01:06:59):
is a problem, they could inciteriots, well then you have this
opposite group of people who youknow, of course they might not
be black, but they like AnthonyHamilton is a problem, not
because they listened to hismusic and thought he was a
problem, but because theauthority says he's a problem.
So now they've created thisfriction between these two

(01:07:21):
groups because it's like so it'sjust creating division and it's
unjust to label somebody likethis as a shit starter.
Basically, I mean, he makeslove songs and neo soul music
and you've now labeled him assomeone who could incite a riot,

(01:07:45):
as if that was his purpose,right goal and making this music
.
Um, so that's pretty fucked up.
When it comes to books, I mean,unfortunately, the, the books
that seem to be banned mostoften are self-help books that
do not follow the conventionalcode.
Um, so like 48 laws power.

(01:08:08):
I mentioned those.
The title alone is probably whyit was banned, but it's all
like giving historical examplesof how Caesar might have done
this and gives you insight to it.
But it's just banned.
You're not getting anythinglike that, anything that looks
at politics outside of what'scommonly acceptable.

(01:08:32):
Yeah, it's not getting in,especially not if it's a current
thing that is causing frictionin the community, like I'm
pretty sure I couldn't send anybook about Donald Trump in there
right now, Like that shit notmaking it.
I'm just saying, right, nomatter what view, from what

(01:08:53):
viewpoint it's looking at them,it's probably not going to make
it in there, right?

Speaker 2 (01:08:58):
I think the final point that I would make on this
article, unless you haveanything else, is that there are
so many parallels as to what ishappening inside of
institutions to what ishappening outside of
institutions, right, but thatwe're not talking about it.
The suppression of incarceratedvoices isn't like an isolated

(01:09:18):
issue.
It is part of a larger nationaltrend of silencing dissent,
especially among communitiesthat are already over-policed
and marginalized, and I thinkthat this increase of electronic
censorship, particularly inoutgoing mail, is only
exacerbating a problem that wasalready present, right.

(01:09:38):
So I just I think it'simportant for us.
I'm glad that Troy wrote thisarticle.
Again, that was Troy Chapman.
The title of the article, whichwe will make sure to link, is
Prison Censorship Goes BeyondBook Bans.
I think it's important.
We wanted to highlight this onetoday because it really is
talking about the livedexperiences and realities of

(01:09:58):
people who are in prisons rightnow, and we're trying to show
that this isn't unique toincarceration.
So the things that we'redealing with in current rhetoric
right now, the things thatwe're talking about and
discussing with colleagues,particularly like I, work in the
government sphere, so we'retalking a lot about what's
happening right now at a federallevel and at a state level and
how it's impacting us at thelocal level.

(01:10:19):
But, like, this is not again,history repeats.
It doesn't repeat itself, butit often rhymes.
That is a Mark Twain quote.
Actually I knew you'd say iteventually, quote.
Actually I knew you'd say iteventually.
With incarceration, this haslong been the standard.
It's just now being enforced ina way that is taking away more

(01:10:43):
from people who have alreadybeen taken away, who have
already had the most taken away.
I guess is the way that I'llsay that.
Any final thoughts from you onthis one?
Sorry.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
I don't know if it's a final thought.
It's really kind of likeopening up the conversation,
because I'm sorry I do that.
I had a thought about anearlier stated thing and it's
like if electronic communicationis going to be pushed as the
only form of communication,there's a huge potential for

(01:11:13):
abuse which we are alreadyseeing, and now you just kind of
got to dissect it and apply itto different areas, like legal
mail.
I saw that when I went to GTLthey gave me an option to say,
hey, are you a counselor, like alawyer?
So then I'm guessing that theyget certain privileges that the

(01:11:35):
average account doesn't.
But if I were to physicallyhandwrite or say, send in copies
of case law, then it doesn'tget opened until it reaches the
inmate, whereas electronicallyyou can tell me you're not
looking at it.
But who really knows?
Right, you know um, and so thepotential for abuse there is

(01:11:58):
insane, um, even in education.
So, like um, there's some sometextbooks that are banned in
prison, but now inmates that aregoing to college and prison,
it's all on the tablet now, it'sall filtered through J-Pay,
it's all filtered through GTO,even your correspondence with

(01:12:19):
your professor.
So I don't know, man, now thatI'm reading this article and now
that I'm thinking on it more,I'm just sitting here like this
is like a gross violation andthere's no oversight.
Like how do you give aorganization like J-Pay or GTL
the power to filter youreducational material through?

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
it Sure.

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
You know that's I don't know.
It's gross to me, so I'm sorryabout that.
You guys, of course we'rehigh-lighting all these points
from this article, but I wouldlike to challenge you guys to go
and take a look at the articlesyourselves.
We'll leave the link in there.
The Prison Journalism Projectis the website.

(01:13:06):
Let me see Is that a com or orgor what?
Let's see.
Prisonjournalismprojectorg, thewebsite.
Let me see.
Is that a com or org or what?
Let's see.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
This one,prisonjournalismprojectorg.
Glad I thought of that.
All right, folks, we're going tobring this episode of Lockdown
Legacy to an end, but I want toremind you all to go to the
PrisonJournalismProjectorg.
Check out some of thesearticles for yourself,

(01:13:29):
especially if you're the typewho wants that raw, unfiltered
message.
You know these are coming fromguys that are currently or
formerly incarcerated, so theydon't have to go through the
mainstream lens.
And thanks for all your support.
I'm glad DJ got to come on hereand tell her own story about
her dissertation and the PhDjourney.
Other than that, we got nothingelse for you this week, man.

(01:13:53):
We're going to do anotherepisode like this next week, so
stay tuned.
We did have two articles thatwe wanted to cover today but
obviously ran out of time.
But can't wait, it's anothergood one Later.