MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Prisoner files formal grievance after no response to appeal
Show Text
Formal Grievance log # 23-6-37898
11/29/2024
prison notified prisoner of censorship, but not publisher
Show Text
FRONT PAGE: PRISON IS WAR CONT. ON PAGE 3
PAGE 5- THE ANTI GANG CAMPAIGN
PAGE 6- THE MURDER OF TYRE NICHOLS -DO YOU APPROVE?
PAGE 8-SEPTEMBER 9TH RECOGNIZED FROM FLORIDA ISOLATION CELLS
Censored "How To Build a United Front" on page 61 specifically
10/08/2024
Appeal
Show Text
October 5, 2024
ATTN: Mail Room
Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
2500 Westgate
Pendleton, OR 97801
Re: Mail Violation Notice
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Mail Violation Notice for the publication MIM Theory United Front which was sent by us to one ***. A copy of this notice, which we received on September 27, 2024, is enclosed within.
First and foremost, we would like to address the claim on the attached notice that we are not allowed to seek administrative review for your censorship of the publication. This is patently and unambiguously unconstitutional as it is a direct violation of our Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights as laid out by the Supreme Court over 50 years ago in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). This is plainly stated when the Supreme Court held that authors and publishers corresponding with prisoners must “be given a reasonable opportunity to protest” decisions to censor their correspondences. If your facility intends to blatantly violate well-established constitutional case law, we expect you to respond with the legal justifications as to why you believe this is acceptable.
Secondly, we strongly disagree with the claim that the censored publication could ever “pose a threat” or “be detrimental” to “legitimate penological objectives.” The publication in question is a historical political document which does not advocate any riotous or illegal activities, so we cannot imagine how this determination was made.
Furthermore, we hold that this rationale is so unacceptably vague as to enable the Oregon DOC to arbitrarily censor whatever material it desires. Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that, when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” Your censorship notice lacks any explanation of how the censored publication specifically could “be detrimental to legitimate penological objectives” and as such it is impossible for us to adequately and comprehensively dispute such a claim.
We request the decision to withhold MIM Theory United Front be vacated and the publication be forwarded to ***. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Pages 7, 10, 11, 16 "could be used as tattoo patterns"
10/07/2024
MIM Distributors appealed
Show Text
October 5, 2024
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock and Key Issue 86 (hereafter shortened to ULK) sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX DC#XXXXXX at Florida State Prison, dated August 8, 2024, which we received on September 28, 2024. Copies of both this notice and ULK are enclosed within. We are the publishers of ULK.
The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly violates sections (15)(d) of Rule 33-501.401, FAC in that it “contains a tattoo pattern or photograph that is large and distinctive enough to be used as a tattoo pattern.”
As publishers who utilize much artwork from prisoners in our materials, we take issue with section (15)(d) as a legal basis on which to violate an individual’s First Amendment rights. Given that nowhere in ULK do we provide instructions on how to apply tattoos or how to manufacture tattoo materials, our alleged violation of section (15)(d) must be for including pieces of art in the publication. The vagueness of the language in section (15)(d) provides FDOC the power to censor any piece of mail that includes art given that some arbitrary FDOC employee deems said art could feasibly be used as a pattern for tattooing. In effect, this gives FDOC carte blanche to censor almost any mail sent to a prisoner with complete impunity which is obviously an overstepping of administrative power and a gross violation of both ourselves and the prisoner’s First Amendment rights.
We request the decision to withhold ULK be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired into missing mail
Show Text
October 5, 2024
ATTN: Robert Adams Jr., Warden
2520 Union Springs Road
P.O. Box 549
Whiteville, Tennessee 38075
Missing Mail
To Mr. Adams:
We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Joe XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:
Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with TDOC policy 507.02 which states that “if the Warden/Superintendent determines that mail sent to an inmate could reasonably present a threat to the security, order, or programs of the institution, he/she notifies both the inmate recipient and sender of his/her intent to reject the mail
and return it to the sender.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility.
Furthermore, we would like to point out that this policy of the TDOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by TDOC policy 507.02 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.
We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired into missing mail
Show Text
October 5, 2024
ATTN: Robert Adams Jr., Warden
2520 Union Springs Road
P.O. Box 549
Whiteville, Tennessee 38075
Missing Mail
To Mr. Adams:
We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Joe XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:
Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with TDOC policy 507.02 which states that “if the Warden/Superintendent determines that mail sent to an inmate could reasonably present a threat to the security, order, or programs of the institution, he/she notifies both the inmate recipient and sender of his/her intent to reject the mail
and return it to the sender.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility.
Furthermore, we would like to point out that this policy of the TDOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by TDOC policy 507.02 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.
We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
"Contains literature that could advocate, facilitate, or otherwise present a risk of lawlessness, violence or rebellion against government authority, prison staff and/or other inmates.
L.R. Thomas, Assistant Commissioner of Prisons
Fourth Floor, Rachel Jackson Building
320 Sixth Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0465
Re: Rejected Mail
To Mr. Thomas:
We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We are in receipt of a memo informing us that a publication we sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #611076 at the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex was rejected. We received this memo on October 4, 2024. You will find a copy of this memo enclosed herein.
To begin, we would like to point out that nowhere in the memo does it mention what material is actually being rejected. This is obviously unacceptable, so we would advise the TDOC to avoid similar missteps in the future. Thankfully, we keep adequate records of what is sent to each of our readers, so we are aware the rejected mail is Under Lock & Key Issue 86 (hereafter “ULK”).
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly satisfies “contains literature that could advocate, facilitate, or otherwise present a risk of lawlessness, violence, or rebellion against government authority, prison staff, and/or other inmates.”
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of part of this description can be found anywhere in the publication. In order to fulfill our due diligence, we reviewed the issue of ULK in question and confirmed this. We would also like to highlight section VI.L.1 (g) of TDOC policy 507.02 which states: “Rejection notices regarding magazines or similar publications must contain information to identify the specific issues or items being rejected (example, picture on page 7 is pornographic; article on page 8 contains information on weapons manufacture, etc.).” We find that the enclosed memo contradicts this policy as it does not provide any details as to what specific portions of the publication supposedly “advocate […] lawlessness.”
Additionally, we include the following disclaimer on page 2 of every issue of ULK: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” Given this disclaimer, we fail to see how ULK is purportedly “facilitat[ing] […] rebellion against government authority” while simultaneously and explicitly disavowing such acts.
We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send an adequate notice of censorship which details the supposed violations as you are required to provide by TDOC policy. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
is so radically inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause violence, provides information on how to obtain prohibited publications or unauthorized items or contraband
ATTN: DAI Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
P.O. Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Censorship Notification
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 85 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX. We are the publishers of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.
The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly “is so radically inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause violence” and that it, also allegedly, “provides information on how to obtain prohibited publications or provides information on how to order unauthorized items or contraband.”
Firstly, the majority of information we provide to prisoners via ULK is in the form of news articles, book reviews, and prisoner art. We fail to see how this could possibly “be reasonably likely to cause violence” in such a manner as to constitute a security risk to your facility. Additionally, we include the following disclaimer in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.”
Furthermore, we hold that this rationale is so unacceptably vague as to enable the MO DOC to arbitrarily censor whatever material it desires. Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that, when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” Your censorship notice lacks any explanation of how ULK specifically could “be reasonably likely to cause violence” and as such it is impossible for us to adequately dispute such a claim.
Secondly, as the publishers of ULK, we have absolutely no idea how any section of the publication could be misinterpreted so as to lead one to believe we are “provid[ing] information on how to order unauthorized items.” Once again, the sheer vagueness of this claim combined with the fact that said claim is being used as justification for violating Mr. XXXXXX’s constitutional rights is absolutely unacceptable as it provides no avenue by which we can dispute it.
We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 85 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
09/05/2024
Acting Director acknowledges appeal and says it's still under review
ATTN: DAI Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
P.O. Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Incorrectly Censored Publication
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received a report from one XXXXXX Al-Hakeem XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at the South Central Correctional Center that ULK issue #85 was not delivered to him because it is a “paid subscription.” There are three points we would like to address here.
First, upon reviewing MO-DOC Policy IS13-1.1 Offender Mail Procedures, we found that there is no policy specifically prohibiting the delivery of mail which is paid for by prisoners. The only regulations in place are for purchases on credit or requiring payment on delivery, which is not applicable here.
Secondly, ULK is not a paid subscription, so no such policy would be relevant in any case. Seeing as we are the publishers of ULK, we hope you will not try to dispute this statement.
Thirdly, it is patently illegal and blatantly unconstitutional for you to not notify us, as the publishers of censored material, when said material is censored by your institutions. As established by decades of case law regarding this issue, this is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
Taken together, these three points illustrate a total lack of regard for the constitutional rights of both Mr. XXXXXX and ourselves. It is a complete failure of the institutional safeguards put in place to prevent abuses of power such as this when your employees in charge of censorship decisions can lie not only about the institutional policies regarding mail censorship but also about basic facts regarding our publication.
We request the decision to withhold ULK 85 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
09/05/2024
Acting Director advises SCCC this is not their policy
Show Text
...This will be reviewed with South Central Correctional Center as this is not one of our reasons utilized for censorship.
MIM Distributors wrote to investigate missing mail
Show Text
August 21, 2024
ATTN: Jeremy Bean, Warden
High Desert State Prison
PO Box 650
Indian Springs, NV 89070-0650
Missing Mail
To Mr. Bean:
We are MIM(P), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Travis XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:
--MIM Theory 11
--Introduction to the Labor Aristocracy study pack
--Grievance Campaign Information
Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with NV-DOC regulation 750.06 which states that “if any item of mail addressed to an inmate is rejected for any reason the inmate shall receive written notice that describes the rejected item [and] states the reason it was rejected.” The regulation goes on to state that “where an item of mail addressed to an inmate is rejected for any reason, a copy of the written notice given to the inmate shall be given to the sender.”
This policy of the NV-DOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by NV-DOC regulation 750 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.
We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Director of Operations
North Carolina Division of Prisons
831 W. Morgan Street, MSC 4261
Raleigh, NC 27699-4261
Re: LETTER TO PUBLISHER
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX B. XXXXXX #XXXXXX. We are the publishers of ULK. For administrative purposes, we’d like to note that this notice is dated to 2/29/24 and was received by us on 3/19/24. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly violates code A of North Carolina Division of Prisons policy D.0100. Code A in this policy states that publications received by prisoners must not facilitate “[t]he commission of criminal activity and/or the violation of state or federal law and/or the violation of Division of Prisons policy and/or offender disciplinary policy and procedures.” The specific reason listed on the notice is that page 10 of ULK “depicts excessive force against policy using impact weapons.”
First and foremost, the content that is being alleged as violating code A is a piece of art on page 10 which was made by a prisoner. This is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and as such it is unconstitutional to censor our publication on this basis.
This being said, we also cannot find anything in Division of Prisons policies that prohibit depictions of “excessive force” as is alleged in the notice. The only somewhat related item we can find is in policy D.0100 where “depictions of unlawful violence” are prohibited. We agree that the art piece is a depiction of violence, but it is in no way unlawful. In fact, your very own policy F.1500 on “Use of Force” specifically lays out guidelines for when it is appropriate to beat prisoners with such “impact weapons.” How could an act which your institution permits and encourages be unlawful?
Furthermore, we would direct you towards the following disclaimer that we include in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We therefore fail to see how ULK is violating code A and purportedly advocating for “[t] commission of criminal activity” while simultaneously explicitly disavowing such activity.
We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 84 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
04/08/2024
Letter to Publisher
Show Text
Under Lock & Key Winter 2024 Page: 10 was disapproved for: In violation Code D
"Depiction that may encourage a group disruption."
04/30/2024
MIM Distributors appealed new notice
Show Text
April 30, 2024
Director of Operations
North Carolina Division of Prisons
831 W. Morgan Street, MSC 4261
Raleigh, NC 27699-4261
Re: LETTER TO PUBLISHER
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”). We are the publishers of ULK. For administrative purposes, we’d like to note that this notice is dated to April 2, 2024 and was received by us on April 27, 2024. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.
We would like to note that said censorship notice does not include any information about the facility to which ULK was sent to nor any information about the prisoner it was sent to. We object to this practice on the basis of the prisoner’s Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly violates code D of North Carolina Division of Prisons policy D.0100. Code D in this policy states that publications received by prisoners must not facilitate “violence, disorder, insurrection, or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its’ institutions.” The specific reason listed on the notice is that page 10 of ULK contains a “depiction which may encourage a group disruption.”
First and foremost, the content that is being alleged as violating code D is a piece of art on page 10 which was made by a prisoner. This is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and as such it is unconstitutional to censor our publication on this basis.
This being said, we find the reasoning listed in the notice to be highly hypocritical. Your institution claims that depicting a prisoner being beat by a correctional officer “may encourage a group disruption,” yet your very own policy F.1500 on “Use of Force” specifically lays out guidelines for when it is appropriate to beat prisoners with such “impact weapons.” How can you simultaneously condone a violent act in your institution while prohibiting any artistic expression depicting said violent act for fear it may cause a security concern?
Furthermore, we would direct you towards the following disclaimer that we include in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We therefore fail to see how ULK is violating code D and purportedly advocating for “violence, disorder, insurrection, or terrorist/gang activity” while simultaneously explicitly disavowing such acts.
We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 84 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to its intended recipient(s). Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Impounded due to Section 15 of Rule 33-501, F.A.C., "Is dangerously inflammatory", "otherwise presents a threat", don't want us talking about prison rape, free panthers books, Palestine rape, or prison as war. All by D. Locke Jr.
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 85
(hereafter ULK) sent to one ****, dated June 12, 2024, which we received on June 28, 2024. A copy of this notice is included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which either “encourages riot, insurrection, rebellion, organized prison protest,” or “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, we refer you to look at page 2 of ULK where state that we “explicitly discourag[e]” our supporters “from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We find it difficult to reconcile this declaration, which we print in nearly all our publications, with FDOC’s accusation of us encouraging “riot, insurrection, rebellion” and presenting threats “to the security [and] order” of FDOC.
In addition, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have
We request the decision to withhold issue 85 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to ****. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.
Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons
Rejected per section 15 of Rule 33-501.402 F.A.C., "Describes how to make an instrument to apply a tattoo", "Otherwise presents a threat to security", By D. LOCKE (TB). No specifics given
July 8, 2024
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notification of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons (hereafter shortened to FPL) sent to one **** at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, dated June 13, 2024, which we received on June 28, 2024. A copy of this notice is enclosed within. We are the publishers of FPL.
The listed reason for censorship is that FPL allegedly violates sections (15)(d) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401, FAC in that it “contains a tattoo pattern or photograph that is large and distinctive enough to be used as a tattoo pattern” and/or “otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”
As the publishers of FPL, we know that no material fitting any criteria of the above descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. In fact, you will find that on page 6 of FPL the publication includes a disclaimer actively discouraging the behavior it is accused of promoting where it is written: “We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.”
Furthermore, we take particular issue with section (15)(d) as a legal basis on which to violate an individual’s First Amendment rights. Given that nowhere in FPL do we provide instructions on how to apply tattoos or how to manufacture tattoo materials, our alleged violation of section (15)(d) must be for including pieces of art in the publication. The vagueness of the language in section (15)(d) provides FDOC the power to censor any piece of mail that includes art given that some arbitrary FDOC employee deems said art could feasibly be used as a pattern for tattooing. In effect, this gives FDOC carte blanche to censor almost any mail sent to a prisoner with complete impunity which is obviously an overstepping of administrative power and a gross violation of the prisoner’s First Amendment rights.
We request the decision to withhold FPL be vacated and the publication be forwarded to ****. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Collected Works of the Black Liberation Army, Volume I
Any newspapers we receive get passed out the night of when they come to the facility. If you haven't gotten any, that means I have not gotten any. A notice of rejection will be given to you only if I have it to reject. No rejection = not here.
