MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
request for rejection notices before we had paperwork
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
13 June 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently been brought to our attention that publications from MIM Distributors sent to XXXXXX XXXXX (XXXXXX) have been censored by your office. Mr. XXXXX reports that MIM Theory 13 and three issues of MIM Notes were rejected on the basis that they were ?racist.? We have not seen the official rejection notice, nor have we been notified of this censorship. I assume the materials have not been returned yet as the decision is still under review. But I am requesting a copy of the rejection notice, and any other rejection notices for our materials, so that we may effectively review and remedy this problem.
Thank you in advance for a timely response,
07/27/2007
support for prisoner's appeal
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
27 July 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
On June 13 I wrote you to request documentation supporting the decision to censor MIM Theory 13 and MIM Notes 332-4. To date I have not received a response from you, but I have received copies of the Media Review decisions from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXX. He has already filed appeals to these decisions, as well as the decision to censor the Party Bulletin #3 by the New Afrikan Maoist Party. The purpose of this letter is also to request a review of these decisions.
Let me start with the NAMP?s Party Bulletin, since that is the easiest. Your staff cited pages 12 and 14 of Issue 3 as the objectionable sections, with no further justification. I have read these pages and all they contain is decisions by the organization regarding publishing articles and organization. Neither of these documents directly address prisoners or promote any kind of activity, lawless or not. So I am quite confident that you will find no reason to continue to hold this publication from inmates at Auburn.
For the 3 issues of MIM Notes staff cited pages 10 + 11, which contain ?Under Lock + Key? and ?MIM on Prisons and Prisoners.? These pages contain critiques of the prison system by MIM and MIM?s readers behind bars. Nowhere in those pages does MIM advocate breaking any rules or laws. It is illegal to censor materials because you do not agree with their views, even if they are critical of your institution.
The most interesting decision was that to censor MIM Theory 13. It seems that all of the portions that were deemed unacceptable by the FMRC are critical of the very things that the FMRC claims to be opposed to. The first objection is to the article ?On Prison Leadership? for allegedly promoting lawlessness and disobedience among prisoners. Yet this article criticizes prisoners for assaulting Correctional Officers and claiming it is a political act. Elsewhere the author criticizes those who use force to keep others in their organizations. Exactly the kind of behavior that prison officials all over the country are also trying to prevent. While you may not agree with all of the author?s views on prisons, certainly you can unite on these issues, which are at the heart of the objections raised by the FMRC.
The next problem that the FMRC had with MT13 is alleged ?racist imagery.? This imagery is in two pieces of art. One uses a Klansman on the flag of the United States to criticize institutionalized racism and violence against Black people. The other uses a klansman again for the same purpose of criticizing white power among the police. In both pieces of art it is clear that the use of the klansman image is being used to oppose and not promote racism. The first even has a caption explaining the art in case readers are confused about the message behind it. To censor an anti-racist cartoon for being ?racist imagery? is contradictory to the goal of combating the problem of racism in the first place.
Lastly, the FMRC cites a review of Hitler?s Mein Kampf as objectionable. As if talking about a racist person is somehow promoting racist ideology. I am sure you would not censor other magazines that talk about Hitler as figure of history, and there is no justification for censoring MIM Theory for doing the same.
In light of these points, I hope you will find that there are no legal justifications for the refusal to allow Mr. XXXXX and others at Auburn Correctional Facility to receive MIM?s publications.
Once again I request your review of these matters and your response to my requests. We do not take these matters lightly and we will continue to ensure that our First Amendment rights to speech and affiliation are upheld.
Letter to Central Office appealing decision
Show Text
COMRC
Building 2, State Campus
Albany, NY 12222
11 August 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter comes in response to a letter we received from Mr. XXXXXX (XXXXXX) in which he enclosed notices from the COMRC upholding the decision of the Auburn Media Review Committee to censor pages 10 and 11, the Under Lock & Key section, of three issues of MIM Notes.
The reason given is Guideline E of Directive #4572, and the decisions claim that the issues of MIM Notes encourage ?armed organized resistence in the part [sic] of inmates and society in general.? Now, in over 2 decades of publishing I can tell you for a fact that MIM Notes has never once encouraged people in this society to take up arms, and we regularly discourage prisoners from getting into any physical confrontations, not to mention armed resistance.
To address these specific issues of MIM Notes, pages 10 and 11 consist of letter writing campaigns to protest censorship, statements encouraging the spread of literature and stories from prisoners about the conditions they face. Nowhere is armed resistance even mentioned as far as I found. If you disagree, please indicate exactly where armed resistance is mentioned and advocated on these pages.
Certainly, our campaigns against censorship and abuse are not what you are referring to as encouraging armed organized resistance. As this work is armed with nothing but pen and paper and the mere existence of your office and the review and appeal process indicates your recognition for the need of due process and the ability to challenge decisions around censorship and other restrictions of prisoners and their friends and families.
I have enclosed my previous correspondence with the Auburn Media Review Committee for your reference. I never received any response from them regarding these matters. If you cannot substantiate your claims regarding the encouraging of armed resistance, we expect these decisions to be reversed and our publication to be allowed to reach prisoners in full in the future.
