Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

see 5/22/13 doc

Media Review Committee
Upstate Correctional Facility
PO Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953-0901

27 July 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

The purpose of this letter is to request a review of the decision made earlier this month to censor some materials sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) at Upstate Correctional Facility. He reports that he was notified that materials, including MIM Theory #5: A Spiral Trajectory, were censored for the reasons that they could incite violence, advocates rebellion against the government and could incite disobedience, as well as for displaying gang insignia.

I am including the Inspector General and Central Office Media Review Committee as recipients as this is one of a series of incidents in the NYS DOCS where MIM Distributors literature has been censored for the political message they contain and MIM Distributors was not notified of the decision. Literature published by MIM has always explicitly discouraged violence and breaking the law by its readers. In addition, there is nothing in MIM Theory 5, or any other MIM literature that encourages disobedience by prisoners beyond the legal grievance of misconduct by prison staff.

As you may be aware, rules 105.13 and 105.14 recently replaced 105.12 regarding unauthorized organizations within the NYS DOCS. Rule 105.13 clarifies the definition of a gang as an organization that has ?engaged in a pattern of lawlessness.? Not only has MIM discouraged prisoners from breaking the rules and laws, but MIM as a group has not broken the law in its 3 decades of existence. Therefore, the gang label claim that Mr. XXXXXX has informed us that you are using against MIM cannot be upheld.

Finally, is it no longer the department?s policy to notify the sender of censorship of their mail as guaranteed by New York Code Title 7 section 720.4(G)(1)(2)? I have written a number of times since March 2008 to ask this question and have yet to receive a response. The rules that appear online still indicate that this policy is in place. Please advise.

Thank you for your time,

Unfortunately, i've been denied "MIM Theory #5, Diet for a small planet." I appealed the issue to the highest echelon of DOC (Albany). I was denied on the ground that the publication promotes social change through violence.

pages 10 & 11 were the Under Lock & Key sections of MIM Notes containing letters from prisoners about what's going on behind bars.

On May 5th i was notified of the reversal, yet i didn't receive the "klean" issue of MT14 until May 8th, after i wrote to the Deputy Warden of Programs that the MT14 was not sent with the reversal notice per procedure.

Central Office Media Review Committee
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Bldg. 2, Rm 112
State Office Campus
1220 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12226

7 May 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

In March, Mr. XXXXXX E.Nkosithani XXXXXX (XXXXXX) notified MIM Distributors that a magazine (MIM Theory 14: United Front) mailed to him had been censored for the reason ?darkened ink splotches from bottom to top on pp. 124&125 and 108&109.? The magazine was not returned, and no notification was sent by the Department of Corrections to MIM Distributors. I have not been able to find anything in Directive 4572 that states that publications can be censored for printing errors within the publication.

On April 6, MIM Distributors sent another copy of the magazine to Mr. Nkosithani that did not appear to have any printing errors in it. This time Mr. Nkosithani notified MIM Distributors that the same magazine had been censored for ?16 pages? that were marked as ?incites violence, et cetera, in violation of Dir. 4572?? He has already submitted an appeal addressing the alleged violations point-by-point. We do not have a copy of the violations, as once again MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship by the department. So we will stand by Mr. Nkosithani?s appeal. It does seem that the Media Review Committee is grasping at straws for reasons to censor MIM Theory 14 since printing errors do not seem to pose a threat of any kind, and MIM?s literature has never incited violence as claimed in the most recent instance.

In addition to requesting an appeal to the decision to censor MIM Theory 14, I wish to request a clarification from the department of Title 9 7004.3(b)(1)(i)(ii). Is it not department policy that publishers be notified when and why their publications have been censored? Our recent experience with Upstate Correctional Facility, Bare Hill, Clinton and others show a regular practice of publications not being delivered to prisoners, not being returned to the publisher and no notification being sent to the publisher. If you could clarify the policy so that we know whether to expect this in the future, I would appreciate it.

Thank you for your time,