Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Prisoner reports appeal denied by Facility Media Review Committee because pages 79 through 90 "advocates acts of violence"

February 4, 2024

Mohawk Correctional Facility
ATTN: Facility Media Review Committee
6514 Rte 26
PO Box 8450
Rome, NY 13442

Re: Sender Disapproval Notice

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Sender Disapproval Notice for the publication Tip of the Spear sent to your facility, dated January 5, 2024, enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly satisfies guidelines D and E of the Sender Disposition Notice Guidelines which state that a “publication which advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority is unacceptable” and that publications should not “advocate, expressly or by clear intention, acts of disobedience.”

As distributors of Tip of the Spear, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, 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 request the decision to withhold Tip of the Spear be vacated and the publication be forwarded to its intended recipients. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

pages 85-92 is depicting or describing techniques or methods for rioting and/or information in hostage or riot negotiation techniques

notice to publisher was only a list of guidelines for censorship with D and E circled. Prisoner reports ey was told pages 10 and 12 advocate acts of violence

p. 10 and 12 were objectionable so ey got ULK 84 without pages 9-12

March 1, 2024

Mohawk Correctional Facility
ATTN: Facility Media Review Committee
6514 Rte 26
PO Box 8450
Rome, NY 13442

Re: Sender Disapproval Notice


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Sender Disapproval Notice for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX James XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. We are the publishers of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly satisfies guidelines D and E of the Sender Disposition Notice Guidelines which state that a “publication which advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority is unacceptable” and that publications should not “advocate, expressly or by clear intention, acts of disobedience.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. In order to fulfill our due diligence, we specifically reviewed pages 10 and 12 as we were informed by Mr. XXXXXX that the FMRC took particular issue with these pages. The only parts of these pages which bear any relation to violence are a piece of art on page 10, which is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression, and a book review of Tip of the Spear on page 12. The book review does discuss violence, but this is in a particular historical context. We firmly hold that discussing history and an author’s perspective on this history is in no way “advocating violence” simply because the history includes violence. If such a standard were generally applied, any discussion of major historical events like the Civil War, the Holocaust, or the Civil Rights Movement would be similarly censored.

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.” We fail to see how ULK is purportedly “advocating violence” while simultaneously and explicitly disavowing violence.

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.


Sincerely,

February 11, 2024

Mohawk Correctional Facility
ATTN: Facility Media Review Committee
6514 Rte 26
PO Box 8450
Rome, NY 13442

Re: Sender Disapproval Notice

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Sender Disapproval Notice. A copy of this notice is enclosed within.

First and foremost, the notice which was sent to us includes essentially no information. It does not include what material is being censored, who this material was sent to, when this decision of censorship was made, or when the notice was written. This is all patently unconstitutional seeing as we, the senders and publishers of the censored material, have a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, we would remind you that we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications, and that this First Amendment right is violated when we are not provided the information needed to appeal cases of censorship. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

Thankfully, we have our records to rely on and have deduced that this censorship notice is likely regarding prisoner XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX to whom we sent both Under Lock & Key Issue 83 (Fall 2023) and Power to New Afrika on January 10, 2024.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publications allegedly satisfy guidelines D and E of the Sender Disposition Notice Guidelines which state that a “publication which advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority is unacceptable” and that publications should not “advocate, expressly or by clear intention, acts of disobedience.”

As the publishers of ULK and distributors of Power to New Afrika, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in either publication. Furthermore, 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 request both that your facility begins to adhere to the findings of the courts to respect our due process rights and that the decision to withhold ULK Issue 83 and Power to New Afrika be vacated and the publications 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,