Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

15 September 2015

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 45

Dear Sir/Madam,

Once again I am requesting a review of the decision of the Publication Review Committee Chair, Fay Lassiter, to censor Under Lock & Key. The reason given in her 3 September 2015 letter was that issue 45 “encourages insurrection and disorder.” At no point does Under Lock & Key No. 45 encourage insurrection nor does it encourage disorder. Despite Ms. Lassiter's banning of every issue of Under Lock & Key for four years straight, every issue promotes peace, organization and legal campaigns as means of addressing the abuse of prisoners. This is the opposite of encouraging “insurrection and disorder.”

It is illegal for you to censor mail that does not pose an actual threat to safety. Please recognize this, and rescind the decision to censor Under Lock & Key No. 45.


Sincerely,

couldn't put up a proper argument because I wasn't able to read or even scan through the material before I appealed.

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

30 June 2015

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 43 & 44

Dear Ms. Bostic,

This letter is to request:
1) That you honor my request for a review of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 43, which I wrote you about thirty (30) days ago.
2) That you review the most recent decision to censor Under Lock & Key No. 44, per my letter below.

On 27 June 2015, a letter arrived for MIM Distributors, from the Publication Review Committee Chair Fay Lassiter notifying them of the disapproval of issue 44 (May/June 2015) of the newsletter Under Lock & Key. The letter gives the reason of “code I”, citing page 8 for the reason of “depicts correctional staff in a negative manner.” The article in question reports on physical abuse prisoners in Ohio faced at the hands of correctional officers.

As I'm sure you are aware, the state is prohibited from censoring the media for the reason that said media is critical of the state's actions or policies. That is the primary purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the institution of a free press. Therefore, it would be a violation of Federal law for your department to follow through with this censorship.

. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Mailroom Supervisor
Bertie Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 129
Windsor, NC 27892

1 February 2010

Dear Sir/Madam.

This letter is regarding the censorship of several letters from MIM Distributors to XXX dating from December 2009 to the present. There are three letters in question. One is an introductory letter to the organization MIM(Prisons) that explains how prisoners can obtain free books, fight censorship with us, and MIM(Prisons)' program and ideology. It was mailed on 10 December 2009. The second letter that was censored is a more detailed informational letter about MIM(Prisons), or a frequently asked questions list. It was mailed on 23 December 2009. The third and most interesting letter that is in question was sent on 09 January 2010. This letter was all about how to fight censorship and follow the administrative appeals process to the highest level, by filing grievances.

All of these letters were returned to MIM Distributors with notice of rejection slips inside. We appreciate your mailroom staff's adherence to the law in this regard. However, we are incredibly confused as to how these letters could be rejected. One of the reasons cited on the notice is that they are all "threat[s] to institutional safety and security." That the censorship information pack could be considered a threat to security is bizarre and unconstitutional. From page 1 of the MIM(Prisons) introductory letter:

"Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the United States)."

How is it then that this mail could be considered a "threat to institutional safety and security"?

Also noted as a reason for censorship of these letters is that they "violate policy #.0109 (E.1)." We request that you (1) send MIM Distributors a copy of policy #.0109(E.1), (2) investigate why mailroom staff is incorrectly applying the "notice of rejection" to letters being mailed from MIM Distributors, and (3) allow XXX, and any other prisoner at Bertie Correctional Institution who so chooses, to communicate with MIM(Prisons) as allowed by law.

We look forward to your investigation and rectification of this problem. Please write to us at the address below with any questions.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties