MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue Winter 2021 Issue 75
SCI Rockview
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your December 1, 2021 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”) mailed to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#XXXXXX) while at SCI Rockview.
Your letter states the objectionable content relates to “Information contained on Page 10 encourages striking for Juneteenth 2022.” The Notice cites “(d) advocate, assist, or are evidence of criminal activity of facility misconduct.”
We do not believe there is a criminal code that outlaws the boycotting of a federal holiday. The boycott is political in nature in protesting mass incarceration and solitary confinement and should be protected speech under the First Amendment that poses no security risk to the facility. Content which is unpopular or objectionable by staff does not allow for censorship (see Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989)).
As such we are asking that Mr. XXXXXX be allowed to receive ULK 75.
Sincerely,
01/20/2022
Policy Office says the boycott "incites violence"
Show Text
This is to notify you that the publication in issue incites violence or encourages a protest on Juneteenth 2022. As such, it violates Department policy for the reason previously stated and shall be DENIED to inmates in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”
The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
09/12/2018
PA department of Corrections denies appeal
Show Text
Mailing Date of this Decision: September 12, 2018
RE: Under Lock and Key, July/August 2018, #63
This is to notify you that your appeal is late and is dismissed on that basis. As such, it violates Department policy for the reason previously stated.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”
The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
“sex offenders vs. Anti-people sex crimes. Whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing”This was overturned
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue March/April 2018 Issue 61
SCI Rockview
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your second April 19, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content relates to pages 1-24 as “sex offenders vs. Anti-people sex crimes. Whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing” (sic). This reference is related to discussion and news reporting that is both meaningful and noteworthy. It is not in violation of any PADOC policy or standard. As such censorship based on this factor is unconstitutional and subjects the PADOC to legal action.
The issue takes a stance that any crime against people is wrong and specifically references drug dealing and assault (p. 5). Contrary to the censor’s rendition of the content. The issue further talks at length about rehabilitation to prevent re-offending in the future. All content which is clearly no censorable. The discussion of revolution is on a philosophical level and nowhere in the issue is there any call for violence or mayhem which would impact the operations of a correctional facility.
Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Create a danger within the context of the correctional facility pages 1-24. Sex offenders vs. anti people sex crimes, whole newsletter, as well as obscene material