Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Acting Director Ryan Crews confirms "this is not one of our reasons utilized for censorship."

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

February 10, 2015

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 41 (Nov/Dec 2014)

Dear DAI Deputy Director,

On January 16, 2015 we were sent a letter from Omer Clark, Warden of Operations at Southeast Correctional Center. This letter was dated January 9, 2015, and a copy is enclosed. The letter was to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship of the above named publication to several prisoners held at Southeast Correctional Center.

The reason cited for this censorship is ?Pg. 3-5 promotes anarchy.? With this letter I have also enclosed pages 3-5 of the above named publication for your reference.

I am sure you are familiar with the relevant case law on this topic. As stated in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401:

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately."

Additionally, in Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974) and in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490, U.S. at 416 n. 14 (1989), that prison officials violate the First Amendment when for reasons unrelated to legitimate penological interests they engage in ?censorship of . . . expression of ?inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views?.

Furthermore, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

With the present letter MIM Distributors would like to:
(1) appeal the negative determination to censor the above-named publication; and
(2) request the decision be reversed and the publication be delivered to the intended recipients as soon as possible.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Your February 10, 2015 appeal was received of the Department of Correction's decision to censor Issue #41 of Under Lock & Key. After reviewing your appeal and the censored material, I support your appeal. I will advise the facilities that Issue #41 of Under Lock & Key will not be censored and thus should be given to the offenders.

Dave Dormire, Director

... the material:
1. constitutes a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the institution
2. may facilitate or encourage criminal activity; or
3. may interhere with the rehabilitation of an offender


...based upon the fact that the material:
promotes, incites, or advocates violence
promotes, incites, advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against a governmental authority
is so radically inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause violence

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

February 10, 2015

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 41 (Nov/Dec 2014)

Dear DAI Deputy Director,

On January 16, 2015 we were sent a letter from Omer Clark, Warden of Operations at Southeast Correctional Center. This letter was dated January 9, 2015, and a copy is enclosed. The letter was to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship of the above named publication to several prisoners held at Southeast Correctional Center.

The reason cited for this censorship is “Pg. 3-5 promotes anarchy.” With this letter I have also enclosed pages 3-5 of the above named publication for your reference.

I am sure you are familiar with the relevant case law on this topic. As stated in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401:

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately."

Additionally, in Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974) and in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490, U.S. at 416 n. 14 (1989), that prison officials violate the First Amendment when for reasons unrelated to legitimate penological interests they engage in ‘censorship of . . . expression of “inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views”.

Furthermore, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

With the present letter MIM Distributors would like to:
(1) appeal the negative determination to censor the above-named publication; and
(2) request the decision be reversed and the publication be delivered to the intended recipients as soon as possible.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

3 June 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 31

Dear Mr. Dormire,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, March/April, Issue #31 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

Since various reasons have been given by different wardens I have included the documents stating their reasons. Below I will attempt to briefly address them as I understand them.

Staff at Jefferson City Correctional Center cite "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" and they refer to page 15. This was the same rule cited to censor issue #30, which you agreed was in error back in April. However, this time I'm not even sure what this rule is in reference to as the contents of page 15 of Under Lock & Key #31 is merely an article on education, a description of the organization that publishes the newsletter and a reader survey.

The explanations from Western Missouri Correctional Center and Southeast Correctional Center both make reference to the newsletter explaining how to organize a group. Omer Clark cites page 2 of the newsletter, which is merely a description of the organizations that write and produce the newsletter. That page also discourages the use of violence against staff and other prisoners. It seems that to censor literature for containing such descriptions would lead to an across the board ban on any literature that is published by "an organization."

I hope that you can clarify these matters for us as well as those attempting to censor our mail. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

3 June 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 31

Dear Mr. Dormire,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, March/April, Issue #31 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

Since various reasons have been given by different wardens I have included the documents stating their reasons. Below I will attempt to briefly address them as I understand them.

Staff at Jefferson City Correctional Center cite "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" and they refer to page 15. This was the same rule cited to censor issue #30, which you agreed was in error back in April. However, this time I'm not even sure what this rule is in reference to as the contents of page 15 of Under Lock & Key #31 is merely an article on education, a description of the organization that publishes the newsletter and a reader survey.

The explanations from Western Missouri Correctional Center and Southeast Correctional Center both make reference to the newsletter explaining how to organize a group. Omer Clark cites page 2 of the newsletter, which is merely a description of the organizations that write and produce the newsletter. That page also discourages the use of violence against staff and other prisoners. It seems that to censor literature for containing such descriptions would lead to an across the board ban on any literature that is published by "an organization."

I hope that you can clarify these matters for us as well as those attempting to censor our mail. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

26 January 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 35

Dear Mr. Dormire,

This letter is in response to two letters from your department notifying us of the censorship of issue 35 of Under Lock & Key. While Warden Steele at Potosi only gives a vague justification that it somehow promotes violence, Warden Stange from Southeast Correctional Center points to an article ?A message to street organizations: Ride or Die! Unite or Perish!? on pages 3-5 as ?promot[ing] anarchy.? That article is a call for peace and unity, the opposite of violence and anarchy, so it seems there is another agenda behind the censorship. There is a history of staff at Southeast Correctional Center targeting members of the organization that authored that article because of their political disagreements. However, as we know, political disagreement is not legal justification for such actions by government employees.

I am requesting that you review this incident of censorship and notify us of your decision.


Thank you for your time,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,