Civil libertarians are objecting to proposed policy changes at the Department of Corrections which they say would allow “for a regime of censorship over the news media in their efforts to interview inmates and inform the public.”

The proposed changes, to be discussed at a public hearing Monday evening in Cranston, would, among other things:

•Allow corrections officials to deny any interview with an inmate if they deemed it insufficiently “sensitive to the feelings and needs of crime victims.”

•Bar interviews with out-of-state inmates.

•Delete from current regulations a provision that protects a reporter’s notes and recordings from being reviewed by department employees after an interview.

•Require that a corrections official always be present while interviews are conducted.

The proposed changes would make it “extremely difficult, if not impossible, for reporters to have candid conversations with inmates on any number of subjects,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union.

For instance, the ACLU cited a reporter’s investigation of alleged brutality by correctional staff or of alleged indifference by administrators to inmates’ medical needs as examples where inmates will likely feel constrained from openly discussing information with the media if a corrections official was present.

As for using “vague criteria such as ‘sensitivity to crime victims”’ in determining whether to allow an interview, the ACLU asked: what of an inmate’s claim of innocence of the crime he was imprisoned? “Surely any such story will seem insensitive to the feelings and needs of the victim but that simply shouldn’t serve as a basis for denying an interview.”

Corrections spokeswoman Tracey Poole said the department wasn’t trying to muzzle the media but conceded “some of Steve’s points are very good and makes sense.”

“It’s not like we are saying this is it and we’re not open to any revisions or thoughts,” she said.

The department wants to revise its media-access policy, Poole said, because it hasn’t been revised since 1987. “It’s out of date and really didn’t include a lot of the things we were already practicing.” Poole said there was no particular incident with a media representative which prompted the policy revision; “policies are reviewed here regularly.”

Brown called the proposed changes “extremely problematic.”

While at the same time the department wants to remove the “hands-off” provision that guarantees a reporter’s notes or videotape won’t be subject to review, Brown said the department is also insisting that a department public relations person be present at all interviews.

Intended or not, Brown said, the arrangement has a chilling effect on inmate’s candor.

Poole said she wasn’t quite sure why the provision protecting reporters’ work from department review was deleted in the draft proposal.

However, she said the requirement that a department employee sit in on interviews predated her arrival to the department more than a year ago.

Brown also criticized the department for offering no rationale for banning all interviews with inmates from other states and its “vague” language referring to the “sensitivity” and “feelings” of crime victims as determining factors on whether to allow interviews

“Does the department intend to consult the victim to determine their ‘feelings and needs,’ before approving an interview” or “demand the censorship of inmate responses that are deemed ‘insensitive?’ ”

Poole said the department wants to ban interviews with out-of-state inmates because “they are subject to the laws and regulations of the state that sent them” and allowing them to speak to the media might violate those regulations.

As far as gauging the sensitivity of crime victims, Poole said that proposed provision was aimed at “sensational” media outlets.

“We do get some sensational reality TV requests,” Poole said. “The director has the discretion to say no now if we feel it’s not legitimate news.”

The revised policy would also restrict where news photographers and camera operators take pictures on “state grounds.”

The Adult Correctional Institutions in Cranston sits within a complex of public buildings and roads. As written now, the proposed policy would ban photographers from taking pictures from the same public sidewalks and parking lots that prison officials have historically directed the media to when recording the departure or arrival of noted criminals.

Poole said the intent of the provision was to limit photography within secure facilities, not around it. That provision will be reviewed, she said.

Regarding the potential of hampering candid discussions by having a corrections official sit in on interviews, Poole said “I suppose that’s a possibility. But I don’t go back to the director and say, ‘We have to stop this.’ It’s more of a security and safety thing.”

“Again, we’re not trying to do anything,” said Poole. “We’re just trying to put into policy what the practice has been.”

Poole said she has reviewed the media-access policies of numerous other states. “We are way, way more generous. We provide a great deal more access than many departments around the country. A lot of DOCs don’t allow cameras at all.”

The public hearing on the proposed changes to the policy will be held Monday at 6:15 p.m. in the Regan Building, 111 Howard Ave. in Cranston. The Regan Building is part of the Eleanor Slater Hospital.

tmooney@projo.com