Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

see 5/22/13 doc

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

28 May 2013

To Ms. Bostic,

This letter is to request a review of the decision to censor the March/April issue of Under Lock & Key, No. 31. The notification sent from Fay Lassiter justified this censorship with the reason ?A Code.? It seems she is claiming that the newsletter promotes criminal activity or breaking the law. Every issue of Under Lock & Key states on page 2, ?We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.? Unless you can find content contradicting this statement, I would argue that there is no justification for censoring this issue of Under Lock & Key.

We recently issued a records request from your office to demonstrate whether there is an independent review process and to justify the consistent decisions to uphold the censorship of our mail. We are still awaiting your response to this request issued over 2 months ago.


Thank you,

Eddie L. Pearson, Warden
Sussex I State Prison
24414 Musselwhite Dr.
Waverly, VA 23891
May 9, 2013

RE: Censorship of book mailed to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Pearson,

Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the Mailroom Supervisor at Sussex I State Prison that the book titled A Curtain of Ignorance by Felix Greene was denied delivery to the above-named prisoner, who is held in your custody. This book was returned to MIM Distributors with a "Notice of Unauthorized Correspondence." There was no reason checked on this Notice to indicate what justified this censorship. Even though it was not checked, there was text written in the "Other" section, "material enclosed unauthorized." That is the only clue offered as to why this book was returned.

What is even more confusing is that Mr. xxx even had a Property Request Form approved by Ms. Bellamy PP for receipt of this book. The Personal Property Request Form containing Ms. Bellamy's signature was enclosed with an invoice when the book was mailed to Mr. XXX. I understand that all incoming mail is subject to inspection and approval per various DOC Operating Procedures, but it is still surprising that a book would be approved for Mr. xxx's property, but then rejected without cause.

Ultimately, I am writing this letter to:
1) Inquire as to why this book was denied delivery to Mr. XXXXXX, and
2) appeal this censorship in an effort to have this book approved for delivery to Mr. XXXXXX.

I appreciate your consideration, and anticipate your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Director's Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099

5 May 2013

Dear Director's Review Committee,

I am in receipt of a notice that Under Lock & Key No. 31 (March/April 2013) has been denied delivery to prisoners in the Texas Department of Criminial Justice. The reason cited for this censorship is Board Policy-03.91 Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules "Reason C. Page 6 contains and advocates a hunger strike." I am writing to appeal that censorship, and to ask that all copies of this publication which have been mails to prisoners within the TDCJ system without further delay.

Reason C states "Publications contians material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve a breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes or riots."

It is true that page 6 of ULK 31 contains a report on a hunger strike. However, prisoners have a right to read the newspaper, which includes news reports within Under Lock & Key. With all the mainstream media outlets reporting on the hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay prison lately, is your Department also censoring these newspapers for Reason C?

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

14 April 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 26

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received notice from the staff at Crossroads Correctional Facility that Under Lock & Key, May/June 2012, Issue #26 has been censored by the Missouri Department of Corrections. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

This incident is part of what is becoming a pattern of the department censoring Under Lock &Key on the grounds that it promotes violence when there are articles that mention violence to criticize it. In my letter to you a month ago I pointed out that artwork criticizing the violence of the Newtown shooting was used to justify censorship. In this more recent case, ULK 26, the cited reason for censorship is a page with an article about the unjust shooting of Trayvon Martin. There is a piece of art with the article that depicts violence in an obvious criticism of the shooting of unarmed Black men. It is my contention that this criticism of the shooting of Trayvon Martin does not promote violence among prisoners at Crossroads Correctional Facility.

Once again, it seems the reviewer, who no doubt must review a lot of material in a day, mistakenly saw depictions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow Mr. XXXXXX to receive Under Lock & Key Issue 26. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

Publication Review Committee
16830 So. Broadway St.
P.O. Box 112
Joliet, IL 60434

April 11, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

On August 25, 2012 MIM Distributors mailed a single envelope containing 3 form letters to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center. The contents of this envelope was a form letter explaining the services of the prisoner support organization MIM(Prisons), a letter inquiring about the prisoner's plans after his release from prison, and a letter inviting him to participate in a study course. The envelope and contents was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned From Facility" written on the envelope. It was not accompanied with any indication as to why this mail was banned, or what policy even allows mail to be banned in IDOC. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Dating back to 2008, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 9: Psychology (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no legal or formal notification given to the sender as to why the mail is being banned, and the sender is not being afforded an opportunity to appeal the censorship.

Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:

1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.

2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."

Additionally, also from your own Administrative Code, at 525.230, "b) A publication may not be rejected solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, or sexual or because its contents are unpopular or repugnant. A publication that may be rejected includes, but is not limited to, a publication or portion thereof that meets one of the following criteria:"

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties
Warden