Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Daniel Burns, Superintendent
SCI Laurel Highlands
5706 Glades Pike
P.O. Box 631
Somerset, PA 15501-0631

27 November 2010

Dear Superintendent Burns,

On 21 September 2010 we were informed by Mr. XXX, a prisoner at SCI Laurel Highlands, that a study group assignment we sent to him was censored due to "copyright infringement." I have included a copy of the material that you mailroom staff allege is in violation of copyright law.

As you can clearly see, at the top of the page is identifying information of the source of the material, which is "MIM Theory - Number 7 - 1995." First, MIM Theory magazines are not copyrighted in any form or fashion. Second, even if they were copyrighted, you can see by our return address and the stationary header, the organization who sent this material to Mr. XXXXXX is MIM Distributors. The organization that runs our prisoner study groups is called MIM(Prisons). Both organizations MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) obviously have permission to be copying and distributing MIM Theory materials, even if it isn't clear to mailroom staff that the magazine as a whole is not copyrighted.

Mr. XXX is enrolled in the next study group session which will be using photocopies of MIM Theory as study material. It is imperative that your mailroom staff is properly trained on how to handle suspected copyright infringement. It is also your legal obligation to ensure that your mailroom staff are not arbitrarily denying prisoners or MIM Distributors their First Amendment rights.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Brian V. Coleman, Superintendent
SCI Fayette
50 Overlook Dr.
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

27 November 2010

Dear Superintendent Coleman,

This letter is regarding several articles of mail that were sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at SCI Fayette. These articles of mail were not received by Mr. XXX, not returned to MIM Distributors, and neither parties were notified of a rejection of the items by SCI Fayette mailroom staff. The items in question were letters as well as a magazine titled MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism and a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 16(September/October 2010). The articles of mail were sent in during August and September 2010.

I would like to request (1) an investigation of the illegal denial without notification practice of SCI Fayette mailroom staff, (2) an investigation into why these articles of mail were denied by SCI Fayette mailroom staff, and (3) an immediate end to the tampering with mail between MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX. If you can come up with a reason why the mail was denied by mailroom staff, then (4) I would like to make an appeal for a second review by someone other than who made the initial rejection, because I am sure upon further review you will find no valid reason to censor these items.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Superintendent Brian V. Coleman
SCI-Fayette
50 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

4 January 2011

Dear Superintendent Coleman,

Thank you for your response to my 27 November 2010 letter. In your response you suggest that MIM Distributors did not send the articles in question, or that our mail carrier is the root of the problem. However, I assure you that MIM Distributors did in actuality send the mail to Mr. XXX as stated in our last letter to you. I also find it hard to believe your other claim that the USPS failed to deliver the number of letters in question. Is this a frequent problem that you have with your local USPS carrier? I think that you are trying to lay the blame on innocent parties, and I believe that the mailroom staff at SCI-Fayette are responsible for this censorship.

In your response you also say that Mr. XXX did not file a grievance regarding this issue. It wouldn't make sense for Mr. XXX to grieve the obstruction of MIM Distributors's First Amendment right, which is the protest I am raising in this letter. Of course he should file a grievance regarding his own Constitutional rights, but not ours. If your mailroom staff is simply throwing away mail from MIM Distributors without notifying anyone that this mail is received, what safeguards can you offer me that staff at SCI-Fayette are not interfering with MIM Distributors' right to free speech under the First Amendment?

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Wayne C. McCabe, Warden
Lieber Correctional Institution
136 Wilborn Avenue
P.O. Box 205
Ridgeville, SC 29472

21 November 2010

Dear Warden McCabe,

This letter is to protest the decision and procedure of mailroom staff at Lieber Correctional Institution. In the past several months there have been multiple instances of censorship of mail coming from MIM Distributors to prisoners at Lieber CI, which I will outline below, but I am primarily concerned with the most recent incident: blind censorship of the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010), which was returned, unopened, with "Ref" or "Refused" written on the outside.

Why exactly were these pieces of mail refused delivery? Why wasn't MIM Distributors, the publisher and distributor of Under Lock & Key, notified of the reason this newsletter was refused? Were the intended recipients notified of this censorship, and offered a chance to appeal the decision, as required by United States law?

I do not believe there is a valid penological reason why Under Lock & Key issue 16 should be denied delivery at Lieber CI, and I would like to appeal this erroneous decision made by mailroom staff to a higher and independent authority than the original censor.

In addition to the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 16, on multiple occasions, the mailroom staff at Lieber CI has refused delivery of a 6 page (3 sheet) letter to prisoners held there. The contents of this letter is an overview of the prisoner support services offered by MIM(Prisons). In May 2010 it was returned stamped "Unauthorized Item," unopened. In March 2010 it was returned with a notification stating that "newsletter or newspaper not allowed in max," yet this introductory letter is neither a newsletter nor a newspaper. In December 2009 this same introductory letter was returned, citing "SCDC Policy PS-10.08 'Inmate Correspondence Privileges,'" but there was no indication of what about this letter was in violation of Policy PS-10.08.

Based on the examples I outlined above regarding the nonsensical censorship of the introductory letter about MIM(Prisons), I would also like to request that you retrain your mailroom staff to properly handle mail coming from MIM Distributors in the future.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Taken from letter from prisoner:

"Pages 7 & 9 The article violates guideline II C Guideline II E of Directive 4572 as it contains gang related material which could incite violence if introduced into a New York State Correctional Facility.

"Pages 4-8, 12 & 13 Violate Guideline II D of Directive 4572, The Media Review Committee feels that this material, if introduced in a correctional setting, could incite lawlessness."

Chris Barela
Do?a Ana County Detention Center
1850 Copper Loop
Las Cruces, NM 88005


8 December 2008

Mr. Barela,

This is my second letter regarding mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#0712331). The latest incident of censorship occurred on November 18, 2008 when once again, Ms. Mary Trujillo rejected mail with the only stated reason being ?copies? (see enclosed). This is despite the fact that the envelope was clearly marked ?Legal Mail? and contained documents related to the investigation of illegal mail tampering at Do?a Ana.

As previously stated, ?copies? is not a legitimate justification for censorship within a United States penal institution. This is my second official request that you have Ms. Trujillo follow the law of the land in this matter.

We look forward to your response,

From United States Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico:

I am unable to find a logical connection between Defendants' stated goal of "monitoring contraband" and either a policy of rejecting "Internet copies of web sites" or a broader policy of rejecting mail that contains "copies." Defendants' stated penological interest in rejecting "internet copies of web sites," doc. 79 at 4, is to "monitor contraband." Id. Web sites exist for every conceivable topic, only some which would be incompatible with penological interests. The connection between the valid policy of monitoring contraband and prohibiting all letters enclosing copies of web sites is, thus, "so remote as to render the regulation arbitrary or irrational." Jones, 503 F. 3d at 1153.

Moreover, a review of the Mail Rejection Notices demonstrates that the rejection category of "copies" includes more than just "internet copies of web sites," and, indeed, likely includes more than xerox copies. Several rejected items were sent from MIM Distributors, a political organization that publishes, prints, and mails newsletters to prisoners. See doc. 84 at 3, 34, 39, 44, 48-51; see also doc. 83 at Exh. C (MIM correspondent expressly denied that its rejected mail was a "copy.") Four letters that included materials for an Esperanto course were likewise refused on the basis of "copies." See doc. 84 at 19, 54, 55, 59. Two letters were rejected due to "Copies (money order receipt.)" Id. at 4. Also, a letter from Liberty University was rejected because of "Copy (verification form)," id. at 58, and a brochure from a university was rejected due to "Copy of College Program and staples." Id. at 56; see also doc. 110. It seems exceedingly unlikely that all of these "copies" were print-offs of web sites. Indeed, some seem unlikely even to have been xeroxed...

Not only would it be nearly impossible for staff to accurately distinguish all copies from truly original documents (people can make hand-written copies, after all), but it is not clear how material that has been duplicated interferes with "monitoring contraband" any more than material that has not.

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

Central Office Media Review Committee
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050

5 August 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

A publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent to XXX at Clinton Correctional Facility. This publication was denied because pages 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were censored by mailroom staff. MIM Distributors did not receive a notice as to why this publication was censored.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. Therefore, we are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoner, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, and (3) prompt delivery of the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13. We look forward to your timely response concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Linda Hollmen
Director of Education
1220 Washington Ave
Albany, NY 12226-2050

3 December 2010

Dear Director Hollmen,

On August 24, 2010 you responded to a letter from MIM Distributors regarding the newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) (ULK 13) which was denied delivery to Mr. XXX, who is a prisoner at Clinton Correctional Facility. In this letter you said that the Facility Media Review Committee (FMRC) claimed that the newsletter violates Guideline D of the Media Review Directive 4572.

Media Review Directive 4572 is applicable statewide. Thus if Clinton CF determined that ULK 13 should be censored due to Guideline D, wouldn't it also follow that other institutions under New York DOCS would come to the same conclusion? Obviously this is not the case as people received ULK 13 in Auburn Correctional Facility, Five Points Correctional Facility, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, and Washington Correctional Facility, among others. How is it that the FMCR at Clinton CF has a differing opinion about how Media Review Directive 4572 should be applied than all other facilities in the NY DOCS system?

These other facilities are correct to avoid using Guideline D to censor ULK 13. Using this criteria to censor ULK 13 is to allege that this newsletter "advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority" which according to Directive 4572 "is unacceptable." I am having a difficult time understanding exactly what about ULK 13 is even remotely relevant to Guideline D. Considering the fact that neither you, the FMRC, or any other staff at Clinton CF has pointed to any specific part of ULK 13 that may "advocate and present a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against government authority," it should be understandable that I am confused. Especially because this claim is completely false, and there is nothing in ULK 13 that violates Guideline D.

It is true that ULK 13 is a revolutionary newsletter. However, that fact alone does not present a "clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority," one that would justify a violation of Mr. XXX's and MIM Distributor's First Amendment right to free speech. As an example, on page 2 of the newsletter in question, there is a box titled "What is MIM(Prisons)?" which clearly states "MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the United States)." The content of the rest of the newsletter is much of the same.

In conclusion, I am requesting (1) an explanation of exactly what element of Under Lock & Key issue 13 applies to Guideline D of the Media Review Directive 4572, (2) a reversal of this decision made by Clinton CF mailroom staff and upheld by the Facility Media Review Committee, (3) and the immediate delivery of Under Lock & Key issue 13 to Mr. XXX. In addition, I would like to request (4) an investigation into why Clinton CF mailroom staff have a different application of Directive 4572 than any other prison in the NY DOCS system, and (5) the end to tampering with communications between MIM Distributors or MIM(Prisons) with prisoners held at Clinton CF.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Catherine S. Bauman
Industrial Park Drive
P. O. Box 600
Munising, MI 49862

20 December 2010

Dear Warden Bauman,

This letter is regarding the consistent censorship of the newsletter Under Lock & Key from MIM Distributors to prisoners held in Alger Correctional Facility by mailroom staff person T. Immel. Immel alleges that Under Lock & Key (May/June 2010) issue 14, (July/August 2010) issue 15, and (September/October 2010) issue 16 all should be censored pursuant to PD 05.03.118 for the reason "mail advocating or promoting violence, group disruption or insurrections is prohibited."

Immel has been censoring Under Lock & Key even though page 2 of all issues clearly states:

"Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the United States)."

Ironically page 2 is consistently cited as a sample page that "promotes unrest and insurrection" on these rejection notices. In addition to page 2, the articles published on pages 1-16 follow this same logic. This newsletter does not promote violence, group disruption or insurrection.

Policy Directive 05.03.118 is a statewide policy that applies to all facilities in the Michigan Department of Corrections. Yet Immel is the only mailroom staff person who believes that Under Lock & Key in any way should be censored per PD 05.03.118. How is this possible? Is the mailroom staff employed at Baraga Max Correctional Facility, Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Kinross Correctional Facility, Mound Correctional Facility, among others, incompetent in the correct application of PD 05.03118? Or, more likely, is the mailroom staff at Alger Correctional Facility, T. Immel in particular, incorrectly applying this Policy Directive?

In light of the above facts, I would like to request an independent review of the newsletters Under Lock & Key issues 14, 15, and 16 by an objective third party to determine their relationship to PD 05.03.118.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response. For your convenience I have included with this letter copies of the rejection notices in question and the sample pages cited.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Fred Britten, Warden
Tecumseh State Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 900
Tecumseh, NE 68450-0900

28 November 2010

Dear Warden Britten,

On 16 November 2010 your designee C. Tetem denied delivery of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX because allegedly "The mail contains threats of physical harm against a person, threats or plans of criminal activity, threats of blackmail or extortion, promotes gang activities, advocates or describes participation in illegal activities." This is a broad, sweeping claim to be made for 6 pages of information, with no specific example given as to where, if anywhere, this violation of Nebraska DOC policy exists.

The contents of this envelope included an invitation to our study groups, a guide to writing articles for the publication Under Lock & Key, and an article titled "We Want Peace! They Want Security." Is participating in a study group classified as "criminal activity" in Nebraska? Or is advocating that prisoners file grievances against torture, physical abuse, lack of medical care, censorship, etc, while explicitly discouraging prisoners from engaging in illegal activities classified as "criminal activity" in Nebraska? I don't think so.

I believe that the claim by C. Tetem is misplaced and incorrect. Therefore, I am requesting a reversal of the decision made by C. Tetem, and for this letter to be allowed at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution. I have included all of the contents of the letter in question that was sent to Mr. XXX.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

7 December 2010

Dear Warden Hedgpeth,

On 21 August 2010 I wrote to you regarding the ongoing censorship of mail from MIM(Prisons) to prisoners held at Salinas Valley State Prison. In response to this 21 August letter, you wrote to me on 9 September 2010 and claimed that "on September 9, 2010, Correctional Lieutenant P. Sullivan spoke with Mailroom Assistant Lisa Matsuno regarding the MIM Distributors. Ms. Matsuno informed Lieutenant Sullivan that Mailroom Staff received On the Job Training to allow MIM Publications into the institution. Ms. Matsuna stated that MIM Distributors publications are being allowed into the institution without delay and no mail from this distribution has been returned."

Ms. Matsuno is correct to say that no mail has been returned to MIM Distributors from mailroom staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, but it is a lie that mail from MIM Distributors has been allowed into SVSP without delay or censorship. In the months prior to my 21 August letter, all the way through September all forms of mail (letters and newsletters) from MIM Distributors have disappeared without a trace in the SVSP mailroom.

On 25 September MIM Distributors mailed the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010) to several prisoners held at SVSP. Recently we received confirmation from these prisoners that the have not received this newsletter, and were not informed by mailroom staff that it was being delayed, returned, or censored. It was also not returned to MIM Distributors.

It is clear that Ms. Matsuno was incorrect to say that there are no problems with mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to document the continued lies and illegal behavior of you and your staff. We recently sent in Under Lock & Key issue 17 (November/December 2010) to several prisoners held at SVSP. We look forward to investigating how this newsletter is handled.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

I appealed the rejection of ULK 14 and DOC HQ ruled in my favor, and remanded saying that SCI-Mahanoy staff denied #14 without due cause. Warden John Kerestes said it was originally denied for page 5.