Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

October 5, 2024

ATTN: Mail Room
Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
2500 Westgate
Pendleton, OR 97801

Re: Mail Violation Notice

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Mail Violation Notice for the publication MIM Theory United Front which was sent by us to one ***. A copy of this notice, which we received on September 27, 2024, is enclosed within.

First and foremost, we would like to address the claim on the attached notice that we are not allowed to seek administrative review for your censorship of the publication. This is patently and unambiguously unconstitutional as it is a direct violation of our Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights as laid out by the Supreme Court over 50 years ago in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). This is plainly stated when the Supreme Court held that authors and publishers corresponding with prisoners must “be given a reasonable opportunity to protest” decisions to censor their correspondences. If your facility intends to blatantly violate well-established constitutional case law, we expect you to respond with the legal justifications as to why you believe this is acceptable.

Secondly, we strongly disagree with the claim that the censored publication could ever “pose a threat” or “be detrimental” to “legitimate penological objectives.” The publication in question is a historical political document which does not advocate any riotous or illegal activities, so we cannot imagine how this determination was made.

Furthermore, we hold that this rationale is so unacceptably vague as to enable the Oregon 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 the censored publication specifically could “be detrimental to legitimate penological objectives” and as such it is impossible for us to adequately and comprehensively dispute such a claim.

We request the decision to withhold MIM Theory United Front be vacated and the publication be forwarded to ***. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

****

"Per OAR 291-131 you should have been allowed to request an administrative review ... I am working ... to ensure that the review of the denial is in compliance with OAR 291-131. Once the review is complete I will inform you of the findings."

Sarah Cunha

Formal Grievance log # 23-6-37898

FRONT PAGE: PRISON IS WAR CONT. ON PAGE 3
PAGE 5- THE ANTI GANG CAMPAIGN
PAGE 6- THE MURDER OF TYRE NICHOLS -DO YOU APPROVE?
PAGE 8-SEPTEMBER 9TH RECOGNIZED FROM FLORIDA ISOLATION CELLS

dated 8/28 but received back in late October

August 21, 2024

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,

"Content in the publication contains information that is so radically inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause violence and provides information on how to obtain prohibited publications or provides information on how to order unauthorized items or contraband (not limited to pages 1, 4, 5, 12, and 13)."

October 13, 2024

ATTN: William Danforth, Warden
Coffee Correctional Facility
PO Box 650
Nicholls, Georgia 31554

Rejected Mail

To Mr. Danforth:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We have recently sent a number of publications to multiple prisoners residing at your facility which have all been rejected by your mail room and sent back to us. The prisoners in question are:

--XXXXXXXX

First and foremost, we would like to address the fact that we have not received any communications from your facility about the rejected mail which was sent back to us. This is in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility. We would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on the relevant jurisprudence.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by GDOC policy 227.06 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. ZZZZZZ, Mr. YYYYYY, and Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

October 13, 2024

ATTN: William Danforth, Warden
Coffee Correctional Facility
PO Box 650
Nicholls, Georgia 31554

Rejected Mail

To Mr. Danforth:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We have recently sent a number of publications to multiple prisoners residing at your facility which have all been rejected by your mail room and sent back to us. The prisoners in question are:

--XXXXXXXX

First and foremost, we would like to address the fact that we have not received any communications from your facility about the rejected mail which was sent back to us. This is in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility. We would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on the relevant jurisprudence.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by GDOC policy 227.06 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. ZZZZZZ, Mr. YYYYYY, and Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

October 13, 2024

ATTN: William Danforth, Warden
Coffee Correctional Facility
PO Box 650
Nicholls, Georgia 31554

Rejected Mail

To Mr. Danforth:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We have recently sent a number of publications to multiple prisoners residing at your facility which have all been rejected by your mail room and sent back to us. The prisoners in question are:

--XXXXXXXX

First and foremost, we would like to address the fact that we have not received any communications from your facility about the rejected mail which was sent back to us. This is in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility. We would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on the relevant jurisprudence.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by GDOC policy 227.06 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. ZZZZZZ, Mr. YYYYYY, and Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

Asking for independent administrative review of ULK 86 to reevaluate the censorship.

the lierature review committee reviewed the appeal and decided that ULK 86 fit the criteria to be censored. Section 3, Rule 33-501.401 FAC

Confirmed that ULK 86 violates the stated rule

October 5, 2024

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock and Key Issue 86 (hereafter shortened to ULK) sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX DC#XXXXXX at Florida State Prison, dated August 8, 2024, which we received on September 28, 2024. Copies of both this notice and ULK are enclosed within. We are the publishers of ULK.

The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly violates sections (15)(d) of Rule 33-501.401, FAC in that it “contains a tattoo pattern or photograph that is large and distinctive enough to be used as a tattoo pattern.”

As publishers who utilize much artwork from prisoners in our materials, we take issue with section (15)(d) as a legal basis on which to violate an individual’s First Amendment rights. Given that nowhere in ULK do we provide instructions on how to apply tattoos or how to manufacture tattoo materials, our alleged violation of section (15)(d) must be for including pieces of art in the publication. The vagueness of the language in section (15)(d) provides FDOC the power to censor any piece of mail that includes art given that some arbitrary FDOC employee deems said art could feasibly be used as a pattern for tattooing. In effect, this gives FDOC carte blanche to censor almost any mail sent to a prisoner with complete impunity which is obviously an overstepping of administrative power and a gross violation of both ourselves and the prisoner’s First Amendment rights.

We request the decision to withhold ULK 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,

Prisoner requesting delivery of ULK 86 that has been held by publication review for over a month.

October 5, 2024

ATTN: Robert Adams Jr., Warden
2520 Union Springs Road
P.O. Box 549
Whiteville, Tennessee 38075

Missing Mail

To Mr. Adams:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Joe XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:

--Under Lock & Key Issue 85
--Under Lock & Key Issue 86

Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with TDOC policy 507.02 which states that “if the Warden/Superintendent determines that mail sent to an inmate could reasonably present a threat to the security, order, or programs of the institution, he/she notifies both the inmate recipient and sender of his/her intent to reject the mail
and return it to the sender.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that this policy of the TDOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by TDOC policy 507.02 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

October 5, 2024

ATTN: Robert Adams Jr., Warden
2520 Union Springs Road
P.O. Box 549
Whiteville, Tennessee 38075

Missing Mail

To Mr. Adams:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Joe XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:

--Under Lock & Key Issue 85
--Under Lock & Key Issue 86

Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with TDOC policy 507.02 which states that “if the Warden/Superintendent determines that mail sent to an inmate could reasonably present a threat to the security, order, or programs of the institution, he/she notifies both the inmate recipient and sender of his/her intent to reject the mail
and return it to the sender.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that this policy of the TDOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by TDOC policy 507.02 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

October 5, 2024

L.R. Thomas, Assistant Commissioner of Prisons
Fourth Floor, Rachel Jackson Building
320 Sixth Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0465

Re: Rejected Mail

To Mr. Thomas:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We are in receipt of a memo informing us that a publication we sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #611076 at the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex was rejected. We received this memo on October 4, 2024. You will find a copy of this memo enclosed herein.

To begin, we would like to point out that nowhere in the memo does it mention what material is actually being rejected. This is obviously unacceptable, so we would advise the TDOC to avoid similar missteps in the future. Thankfully, we keep adequate records of what is sent to each of our readers, so we are aware the rejected mail is Under Lock & Key Issue 86 (hereafter “ULK”).

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly satisfies “contains literature that could advocate, facilitate, or otherwise present a risk of lawlessness, violence, or rebellion against government authority, prison staff, and/or other inmates.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of part of this description can be found anywhere in the publication. In order to fulfill our due diligence, we reviewed the issue of ULK in question and confirmed this. We would also like to highlight section VI.L.1 (g) of TDOC policy 507.02 which states: “Rejection notices regarding magazines or similar publications must contain information to identify the specific issues or items being rejected (example, picture on page 7 is pornographic; article on page 8 contains information on weapons manufacture, etc.).” We find that the enclosed memo contradicts this policy as it does not provide any details as to what specific portions of the publication supposedly “advocate […] lawlessness.”

Additionally, we include the following disclaimer on page 2 of every issue of ULK: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” Given this disclaimer, we fail to see how ULK is purportedly “facilitat[ing] […] rebellion against government authority” while simultaneously and explicitly disavowing such acts.

We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send an adequate notice of censorship which details the supposed violations as you are required to provide by TDOC policy. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,