Virginia Hides List of Censored Publications

I’ve been doing follow up on your letter of 10 September 2014 to the Publications Review Committee [regarding the inclusion of MIM publications on the Master Disapproved list]. So far I’ve discovered three different Disapproved Publications Lists. To clear up the confusion I wrote to the law library requesting the most recent list. Instead of receiving the list, I was instructed to obtain the list from the pod librarian. I attempted to do so, but the pod librarian has only the Disapproved Books List and not the Disapproved Periodicals List. Of course, MIM Theory and ULK are on the latter, not the former. I’ve submitted yet another request for the Disapproved Periodicals List. If I am not given the list this time, I will initiate the grievance.

In your response to Lou Cei you indicate that he states MIM Theory and ULK have been disapproved for reasons other than the reasons on the Disapproved List I sent to you. Lou Cei also states that 5 of the MIM Theories are on the list as approved for inmate purchase.

I have located a Disapproved List that is dated March 2014. This is not the most recent updated list. It does have 4 MIM Theories listed as approved and 3 MIM Theories listed as disapproved. But here is the problem: the rows and columns of the chart are not in agreement. For example, the publication titled “Mermaids” shows an author “Elijah Muhammad” but on the row directly below is the book “Message to the Black Man in America” showing as author “C. Gatewood.” Obviously the column listing the author’s names is out of sync with the column listing titles. So it then becomes impossible to know if the column that lists the approval status is correct. For instance, Mermaids is disapproved but Message to the Black Man is approved.

Since I’m unable to have the list photocopied I copied pertinent portions by hand:

MIM Dist. Level 1 Study Group Disapproved
MIM Theory 2&3 Approved
MIM Theory 4 Approved
MIM Theory 11 Disapproved
MIM Theory 13 Disapproved
MIM Theory 9 Previously Disapproved
MIM Theory 5 Diet for a Small Red Planet Approved
MIM Theory M. Baalbaki Approved
Under Lock & Key #37 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key Feb. 2011 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #15 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #27 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key July/Aug 2013 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #25 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #37 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #37 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #20 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #26 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #23 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #36 Disapproved
Under Lock & Key #28 Disapproved

To further muddy the waters, this list shows certain publications that are approved whereas the other lists show only those publications that have been disapproved.

MIM(Prisons) adds: This is a good example of the difficulties we encounter trying to appeal censorship in Amerikan prisons. We are often given incomplete or incorrect information, when we can get the prisons to respond to our protest letters at all. And prisoners trying to do the work to gather policies and lists in order to file the appropriate grievances are given the run around and denied necessary information. In spite of this, we do win censorship battles through perseverance. This comrade is doing the hard work of fighting on h end, and so we will continue to support this battle with letters of protest of our own. We encourage all prisoners whose mail is denied to follow up and file grievances. And let us know what’s going on and what steps you are taking so we can support your fight from our end.

Censorship is nothing more than an attempt by the prisons to keep us from raising the level of education and political consciousness of prisoners. Material that educates and organizes is disapproved, often as a “threat to the security of the institution,” while material that pacifies (the bible, pop culture magazines and fiction novels) is allowed in. Politically we are opposed to the U.$. prison system; the revolution we are fighting for to overthrow imperialism will put an end to the criminal injustice system in the United $tates. But this is a political question, which our bourgeois democracy deems illegal for government agencies to repress discussion of. The practical question of whether literature sent to prisoners by MIM Distributors is a threat to the institutional safety and security is clearly answered in the negative, as we know that prisoners who get involved with political organizing are less likely to engage in violent conflicts with other prisoners and with the prison staff.