March 29, 2024–Due Process Institute and Justice Action Network submitted comments on a proposed Bureau of Prisons (BOP) rule that would prohibit incarcerated persons from “accessing, using, or maintaining social media, or directing others to establish or maintain social media accounts on [their] behalf.”
The proposed language would unjustly punish people incarcerated at Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities using the harshest possible means for communication on social media, without regard to whether the communication has a legitimate legal or personal purpose. We believe that a full and total ban would be excessive in its own right, but a ban with significant sanctions for violations is an extreme policy. This rule is especially concerning when proposed amid increasing documented instances of abuse, including rape and unconstitutionally inhumane conditions such as substandard medical care and more at BOP facilities. Further, victims of this abuse have faced retaliation or cover-ups by prison personnel or other incarcerated people, and can thus feel a chilling effect when reporting issues through the normal channels.
Many individuals who are incarcerated have family and friends who are concerned about their well-being while in prison. Not only do we know that maintaining these contacts is vital for incarcerated peoples’ mental health, considering the likelihood of abuse and poor conditions, these concerns are justifiable. Social media provides a way for incarcerated individuals, families, and friends to raise awareness of violence, sexual abuse, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and more inside the walls of federal prison facilities. Social media also provides a means to advocate for an incarcerated individual beyond the conditions inside of prisons, which may include ongoing court proceedings, appeals, and clemency or pardon petitions.
BOP Director Colette Peters has long stated that she believes in increasing transparency at the BOP, and has said she wants to humanize and normalize life in prison. Including this language in the proposed rule runs contrary to these views. We oppose the inclusion of this language on social media use and urge the BOP to remove it from the proposed rule.