MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
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
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 83 (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 “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.” 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 used to instill violence or hatred” 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 used to instill violence or hatred” and as such it is impossible for us to dispute such a claim.
We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 83 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.
Missouri Department of Corrections
DAI Director
2927 Plaza Drive
PO Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 72
XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 72 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notification lists three reasons for censorship which are listed as:
1. constitutes a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the institution;
2. may facilitate or encourage criminal activity; or
3. may interfere with the rehabilitation of an offender.
A final explanation states the publication “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.”
Nowhere in the notification is there listed the page numbers or examples of content the Missouri Department of Corrections finds objectionable. This is unacceptable as a matter of law.
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). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012).
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
The reasons cited for the censorship are vague and unsupported by the notification as no reference to any alleged objectional contents is set forth. We remind you that such a broad-based vague response is unconstitutional.
As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide notice, we have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.
We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 72 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.
Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
04/26/2021
Director Upholds censorship
Show Text
"The publications were correctly censored in conjunction with our censorship policy. Content in the publication contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population."
Missouri Department of Corrections
DAI Director
2927 Plaza Drive
PO Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 68
MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 56 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notification lists three reasons for censorship which are listed as:
1. constitutes a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the institution;
2. may facilitate or encourage criminal activity; or
3. may interfere with the rehabilitation of an offender.
A final explanation states the publication “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.”
Nowhere in the notification is there listed the page numbers or examples of content the Missouri Department of Corrections finds objectionable. This is unacceptable as a matter of law.
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). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012).
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
The reasons cited for the censorship are vague and unsupported by the notification as no reference to any alleged objectional contents is set forth. We remind you that such a broad-based vague response is unconstitutional.
As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide notice, we have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.
We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 68 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.
Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Missouri Department of Corrections
Deputy Division Director
2927 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 65
[Prisoner XX]
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been notified of censorship by a prisoner in the custody of Missouri Department of Corrections of issue 65 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key. Our notification of censorship was received from a prisoner, not the Missouri Department of Corrections.
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). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012).
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand the Missouri Department of Corrections provide notice as to the publication censored and most importantly detailed reasons for such censorship with specific references to the material found to be objectionable. We reserve our right to appeal any censorship of ULK upon receipt of said notice.
We also have reason to believe that the Missouri Department of Corrections is excluding all issues of Under Lock & Key pursuant to a “blanket ban” on the publication. As you are aware such a “blanket ban” has been found to violate a publisher’s rights to due process. If this in fact the case, we demand the Missouri Department of Correctios cease such a “blanket ban” immediately. An individualized review of the content of each issue of a publication must be reviewed prior to it being censored. Lane.
The reason cited for the censorship was “anarchy and rebellion against government authority.” May we remind you that such a broad-based vague response is unconstitutional. Given this reason for censorship any book or article concerning the American Revolution must be banned. Please provide a copy of all publications pertaining to the American Revolution banned for this reason. This request should be considered a request for open records under Rs Mo. 610.010 et seq.
As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide notice, we have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.
We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 55 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.
Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
03/19/2019
Director of MO DOC rejects MIM(Prisons) appeal
Show Text
I am in receipt of and have reviewed your written correspondence requesting to appeal the Department of Correction's decision to censor the publication Under Lock & Key, Issue #65.
The publication was correctly censored in conjunction with our censorship policy. Content in the publication promotes, incites, advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against a government authority.
Sincerely,
Alana Boyles, Director
Division of Adult Institutions
Form Filed: Censorship Notification - "is so racially inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause violence" "promotes, incides, or advocates violence" "promotes general unrest"
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.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c9013.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1191.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1182.jpg){kind=link}