Sexy letters vs. jailhouse censoring

Freedom of (dirty) speech tested in Carroll County

Stacy Maczis thought she knew what was acceptable to write to an inmate at the Carroll County Detention Center.

“You could write anything, as long as it didn’t have to do with violence, direct threats, criminal activity, drugs or any of that type of thing,” the Westminster woman said.

At least, that’s what she said a corrections officer told her before penning an intimate letter to her boyfriend, a current inmate, in late September. She recognized — correctly — that the jail had the right to monitor incoming mail, but she wanted to know how far she could go with sexual content.

As far as racy letters, Maczis said the officer told her: “We’ve had stuff that would make your hair curl, but we send it through, it’s fine.”

So she wrote a letter of an admittedly adult nature to her boyfriend and he received it. But a second letter was flagged as “sexually explicit,” she said. Her boyfriend never received it, but it wasn’t returned until weeks later, a delay she found disturbing.

“Apparently it was floating around in the jail for a month,” she said.

More importantly, Maczis wanted to know why her letter had been flagged at all, as were several subsequent letters — especially after she had tried to ascertain the jail’s policies ahead of time.

“I asked, ‘Can you please send me the policy for what is allowed to be written?’” Maczis said. “If you just send methe policy, I will follow it. I know you are allowed to read my letters. That’s fine. Read them. But I’m 47, he’s 35. If I want to have sex with this man, why is it your business?”

To Maczis, it’s a question of their right to free speech.

When it comes to the First Amendment right to free speech and correctional institutions, the courts have recognized officials may place greater restrictions than in everyday life, said Jose Anderson, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore.

“Correctional officials have a broad range of discretion regarding the interception and confiscation of correspondence coming to the institution,” Anderson said.

“One narrow exception is legal mail, and correspondences between the inmate and the attorney require special care, usually only to be opened in the presence of an inmate and not to be subject to seizure if they are truly legal papers regarding the inmate’s case.”

And that’s been Carroll County Detention Center Warden George Hardinger’s understanding as well.

“They said we need to articulate a reason, and they use the term ‘obscene,’ which our materials use,” he said. “We need to articulate some reason and we are fully in compliance.”

Correctional officers review all incoming mail to the jail, other than legal letters, Hardinger said. Their primary concern is contraband, specifically drugs like the addiction treatment medication Suboxone. Photographs and even drawings also are prohibited.

In terms of written content, he said, they are looking for threats or criminal activity, but the jail is not particularly interested in policing conversation between adults unless it gets overly explicit.

“We’re not trying to stop people from having some discussion. But if it’s a bit much, then, yeah, send it back. We have a form that we fill out,” Hardinger said. “We check a block that says, ‘This is why your mail is being returned.’”

This could explain why Maczis had difficulty getting a clear explanation of detention center policy. Hardinger noted that the only printed material noting the “sexually explicit” restriction is the form sent back with a rejected letter, and the return to sender process can take up to several weeks, longer than even he realized before inquiring about Maczis’ missing letter.

The other reason is that the standard — based on assessments by individual correctional officer — is admittedly subjective, he said.

“You know the old, ‘I don’t know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it?’ ” Hardinger said. “It could happen on occasion where someone is a little more sensitive, and that could be contributing to this particular incident.”

That’s not to say that the warden believes everything is functioning as it should or always will.

In this case, the detention center is moving to post guidelines for letters online, so anyone wishing to write an inmate will be able to see the restrictions.

Moreover, the warden said he has asked his command staff whether it’s in the jail’s interest to reject written sexual content in letters.

“We all agreed there are some [sexually explicit] letters that have gotten [delivered]. So, excepting that, do we really want to be in a position where we are editing people’s mail and saying you really can’t have this discussion?” Hardinger said.

Maczis, for one, hopes that discussion ends in a less restrictive standard for future letters.

“People have rights,” she said. “Whether they are inmates or not, they have rights.”