Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

The publication has been rejected becuase the referenced page contains an article written by another inmate which references "Control Unit" protocols. Due to the reason cited, the above-named publication is not suited for introduction into a correctional facility.

The publication has been rejected becuase the referenced page contains an article written by another inmate which references "Control Unit" protocols. Due to the reason cited, the above-named publication is not suited for introduction into a correctional facility.

Regional Director
Gateway Complex Tower 11, 8th Floor
4th and State Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2492

20 December 2010

Dear Regional Director,

This letter is to request an independent review of the newsletter Under Lock & Key, issues 13 (March/April 2010), 14 (May/June 2010), and 15 (July/August 2010), which were censored to prisoners held at the United States Penitentiary - Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado. I have included copies of the rejection notices for these publications for your reference. For your review I have also included copies of issue 13 pages 6 and I I and issue 15 pages 4-5, which were cited as reasons for the censorship. I have included the entire publication of Under Lock & Key issue 14 because the whole publication is cited as the reason for censorship.

Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was censored because "the referenced pages discuss what to do with potential
infiltrators who join movements, not suitable for a prison environment." In what way is this article applicable to Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5266. 10, Incoming Publications? In what way is an article about regarding all comrades as potential infiltrators, and combatting this tactic by controlling information flow, "detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution"? How does this "facilitate criminal activity"? I question the motives of the staff at USP-AdMax in withholding this information from their prisoners.

Regarding the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 15 (July/August 2010), pages 4-5, a report on an incident that happened in a prison is distinctly different than providing "information on organizing food and hunger strikes." Under Lock & Key does not contain any more "information on organizing food and hunger strikes" than the New York Times. Is the New York Times also censored at USP-AdMax?

From page 4 of issue 15, "MIM(Prisons) adds: We do not think armed struggle now is a viable option for obtaining a more just society within the imperialist countries today. Therefore our strategic orientation opposes going up against the state in physical confrontations... It would be irresponsible for us to encourage prisoners to get in fights with guards." From a different article, also on page 4, "the key is to start things that can be done with smaller groups, such as lawsuits and study groups, or actions that require less commitment like petitions and fund drives." Clearly issue 15 does not "encourage violence and physical force to change conditions in a prison."

Page 5 of ULK 15 contains a report on a work/hunger strike in response to unanswered grievances regarding "open sewage around toilets and sinks, gaping holes in the shower walls, exposed plumbing, leaking roof in the living and sleeping area and the kitchen, and the constant arbitrary lockdowns." The author of the article clearly states that "the consensus was that we keep the strike peaceful." Stopping work and eating are in no way "violence or physical force to change conditions in a prison." Like I wrote above, what little information a reader may glean from these pages about how to organize a hunger strike could just as easily be gleaned from a similar article in a mainstream newspaper.

Therefore, I would like to request an independent review of issues 13, 14 and 15 of Under Lock & Key. I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Blake R. Davis, Interim Warden
United States Penitentiary
Administrative Maximum
P.O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226-8500

September 24, 2009

Mr. Davis,

This letter is to appeal the denial of MIM Distributors' publication Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009) to prisoner XXX. The reason cited was because we reported on the brutal stabbing of a prisoner by FBOP staff, that happened to take place during a riot at FCC Coleman. Your letter stated that "The Warden may reject a publication if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it may facilitate criminal activity."

In your letter you seemed to imply that reporting on a riot is similar to advocating for one, or instructing people how to start one. However, if you read the"What is MIM(Prisons)?" information on page 2, you would have read that "MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time," which is far from a statement advocating or pushing for a riot. In fact, it is a statement that would discourage prisoners from engaging in all violent activities.

The New York Times, as well as every other legitimate newspaper, reports on violent activities every single day. Does your mailroom staff take the time to peruse these publications, and deny the ones that have the word "riot" in a headline, while also disregarding the content of the article?

Or perhaps why you illogically targeted Under Lock & Key for denial is because this article exposed the blatant disregard for human life of the FBOP staff, of which you are a part. You may be interested in researching Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F. Supp. 2d 964 (W.D. Wis., 2008), in which it states that "An 'attempt to immunize oneself from public scrutiny is not a legitimate penological interest' and 'criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion.'"

We ask that you permit XXX to receive Under Lock & Key issue 9, and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

I am, in this instance, appealing a rejection of a incoming publication for not having met a specific requirement of "Turner v. Safley, 482 US 78 (1987). Specifically - "A neutral government interest." The publication in question was rejected by mailroom staff on Aug. 9th, 09, and dated and signed by (interim) Warden Black R. Davis on Aug. 10th, 09. Title of rejected publication is entitled "Under Lock & Key". And the mailroom staff's opinion regarding the rejection is also being challenged.

First & foremost, there is no "Administrative Concern" being addressed in the rejection notice, only the mailroom staff's opinion (personal) [Administrative concern="detrimental to security, good order, discipline, etc.] This is not to suggest that the mailroom's staff's opinion has no merit, but that on its own is only descriptive of what that staff member has purported. The fact of the matter is there is no definitive material evidence to support the basis of the opinion only the mailroom staff's "cited reason" that the rejected publication "...could instigate further conflict...", which is little more than voodoo being paraded as science. What next? Bug's Bunny's feet as the barometer to gauge empirical data, or, urban legend as the predicate in categorizing observable phenomena. Simply stated: I'm neither questioning the fact of the "riot" at that complex or the few pages of the rejected publication that are in dispute in this instant action. It is the mailroom staff's opinion who rejected the publication who I take exception to.

So, having neither qualified [failed to link the "riot" and objectionable pages] the position in the rejection notice with anything more substantial than, "could instigate further conflict," as a legitimate concern, or by, establishing a definitive "Administrative concern," it is the stated objective of this remedy to reverse the decision of the rejection by allowing the publication "Under Lock & Key" to come in my personal possession.

Respectfully submitted,