Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

The grievance is denied. The Mailroom Supervisor discussed this issue with the Package Room staff. Mailroom staff correctly forwarded this parcel/package of over 20 newspapers to the package room. The grievant did not have a subscription to this newspaper and the entire contents are deemed a package. The grievant is advised to follow the directions on his Contraband notice.

[X] I disagree with the IGRC response and wish to appeal to the Superintendent.

Media Review Committee
Southport Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Pine City, NY 14871-2000

2 March 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in a response to a notification that we received from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) that a copy of MIM?s newsletter, Under Lock & Key Issue 1, was censored by Southport Correctional Facility mailroom staff because it ?incites disobedience.? We were not notified by staff of this censorship, so we can only respond to the information provided us by Mr. XXXXXX.

I am requesting a review of this decision, which reportedly applied to all pages (1-12) of the newsletter. The basis of my appeal is that it is MIM?s explicit policy to discourage prisoners from breaking any rules or laws. Not only do we promote the use of legal means of dealing with injustices, we have had a significant effect in reducing retaliatory actions among prisoners who are a part of our programs over the last couple decades.

While I could not find any incites to disobedience in the publication in question, I did find the following statement on page 2:
?Note to prisoners and to mailroom staff -- MIM and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the united states). 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.?

Then on page 11 a contributor writes: ?I do agree that those types of behaviors [cursing and spitting] are not only silly but stupid.? The writer goes on to encourage prisoners to use ?the pen & paper? as the only form of dealing with abuses that they face.

In light of these excerpts and a review of the whole content of ULK Issue 1, I hope you will find that the claims made to justify censoring MIM were erroneous. If you disagree, please provide us with an explanation of exactly what content of this publication was deemed unacceptable so that we can work to resolve this matter.

Thank you for your time,

Inspector General
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Bldg. 2, Rm 112
State Office Campus
1220 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12226

16 March 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

We recently received a letter from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX), requesting that we contact you regarding a recent incident of censorship of one of our publications at Southport Correctional Facility. I have enclosed the letter that we originally sent to the Media Review Committee at Southport. Since then, Mr. XXXXXX has written to request an investigation into the fact that Southport?s Media Review Committee Chairperson, P. Sweeney, has not been notifying publishers that their mail is being censored. This letter is to affirm that we never received notice of the February 15, 2008 censorship decision made regarding the November 2007 issue of our publication Under Lock & Key.

As described in the enclosed letter, we are requesting that our communications and affiliations with prisoners in the NYS DOCS be allowed per the rights granted us in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, we request that if there are any further concerns that we are notified of them so that we can work to remedy them immediately, as described in New York Code Title 7 section 720.4(G)(1)(2).

Thank you for your time,

The February 15th, 2008 decision of the Southport Facility Media Review Committee, to reject and censor, Under Lock & Key, November 2007 No. 1, was reversed by the Central Office Media Review Committee on April 2nd, 2008, which was a huge victory in our fight against censorship.

I would like to inform you that since this victory, I have been receiving material from MIM Distributors with no harassment, which is definitely great news!

a New York Prisoner

Media Review Committee
Southport Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Pine City, NY 14871-2000

April 2, 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

Our office has been notified by Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) that he has been denied a copy of Party Bulletin Issue 6 published and distributed by the New Afrikan Maoist Party (NAMP) for the reason: “inciting disobedience.” We have not received notification of this censorship ourselves, but it is our understanding that it is required that your committee notify the party that is being censored that their mail was not delivered and why. We are requesting such notification so that we can deal with this matter effectively.

Though we were not notified of this censorship, I hope that this letter can serve as a request for an appeal of the decision. Mr. XXXXXX reported that pages 1-15 (the whole publication) were rejected for the given reason. Pages 4-7 contain nothing but definitions of words. Pages 8-14 contain a fictional story on the theme of economics. It seems hard to believe that you could honestly propose that such content is “inciting disobedience.”

The one portion of the newsletter that encourages prisoners to act is the call to New York prisoners, on page 15, to participate in an ongoing lawsuit that we are currently involved in against the NYS DOCS. It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest, and illegal for DOCS staff to be hindering our efforts to gather statements from our supporters regarding the repression that they are facing for receiving and possessing literature from NAMP. If your committee decides to uphold the decision to censor this material we do plan to add this incident as evidence of the department’s violation of its own rules in regards to its treatment of NAMP and particularly of prisoners who are supporters of NAMP.

We hope that upon reconsideration you will find that there is no legitimate reason to censor Party Bulletin Issue 6 and other literature that we send to prisoners at Southport.

Sincerely,