Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Mailroom Supervisor
Bertie Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 129
Windsor, NC 27892

1 February 2010

Dear Sir/Madam.

This letter is regarding the censorship of several letters from MIM Distributors to XXX dating from December 2009 to the present. There are three letters in question. One is an introductory letter to the organization MIM(Prisons) that explains how prisoners can obtain free books, fight censorship with us, and MIM(Prisons)' program and ideology. It was mailed on 10 December 2009. The second letter that was censored is a more detailed informational letter about MIM(Prisons), or a frequently asked questions list. It was mailed on 23 December 2009. The third and most interesting letter that is in question was sent on 09 January 2010. This letter was all about how to fight censorship and follow the administrative appeals process to the highest level, by filing grievances.

All of these letters were returned to MIM Distributors with notice of rejection slips inside. We appreciate your mailroom staff's adherence to the law in this regard. However, we are incredibly confused as to how these letters could be rejected. One of the reasons cited on the notice is that they are all "threat[s] to institutional safety and security." That the censorship information pack could be considered a threat to security is bizarre and unconstitutional. From page 1 of the MIM(Prisons) introductory letter:

"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)."

How is it then that this mail could be considered a "threat to institutional safety and security"?

Also noted as a reason for censorship of these letters is that they "violate policy #.0109 (E.1)." We request that you (1) send MIM Distributors a copy of policy #.0109(E.1), (2) investigate why mailroom staff is incorrectly applying the "notice of rejection" to letters being mailed from MIM Distributors, and (3) allow XXX, and any other prisoner at Bertie Correctional Institution who so chooses, to communicate with MIM(Prisons) as allowed by law.

We look forward to your investigation and rectification of this problem. Please write to us at the address below with any questions.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties