Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024

October 3, 2007

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is to appeal the decision to censor copies of Issue 4 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. The reason given for the censorship was the same reason given for a number of recent censorship incidents of Our own publication and the publication of other organizations. The notice cites the ?Regulations? at the bottom of page 14 onto page 15-16 as the justification that the publication promotes lawlessness.

The ?Regulations? section does not mention law enforcement or prison personnel. The regulations are internal rules for the operation of one of Our organizations. They have nothing to do with prisons or prison personnel, so it is unclear to me how this can be used as evidence for the accusation made.

Not only does the publication in question not promote lawlessness or disobedience towards prison personnel, but We actively advocate to prisoners on Our mailing list to follow the rules and not get into fights. In fact, if you read the previous section of the article in question entitled ?Rules,? you will see that in Rule 2 We forbid members from engaging in any criminal behavior including drug use and involvement in gangs. We promote the same behavior among Our supporters everywhere, including within Auburn Correctional Facility.

I hope this letter clarifies Our position and allows prisoners at Auburn to receive their copies of the Party Bulletin 4, and subsequent issues. If you have any questions or determine that this appeal is inadequate to reverse the decision to censor Us, please let Us know immediately so that We can continue to address this matter.

Thank you,

Major K. Chris, Chief of Security
Red Onion State Prison
PO Box 1900
Pound, VA 24279

28 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has recently come to our attention that mail from MIM Distributors is being censored at Red Onion State Prison. We just received documentation of censorship that you authorized in May on the basis of Division Operating Procedure 852, Section 852-7.8 #7 & #13. From what we have been told by prisoners on our mailing list all of our mail is being rejected with the justification that it is ?STG-related? material.

We are requesting a copy of the Division Operating Procedure so that we can further address this matter. In addition, if it is true that the cited sections refer to our mail being related to a Security Threat Group, we are also requesting a justification from the department for this accusation.

We look forward to your response,

Department of Corrections
OCO Deputy Secretary
PO Box 41100
Olympia, WA 98504

10 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).

For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.

Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.

The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.

The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?

We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX

10 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).

For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.

Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.

The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.

The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?

We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX

10 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).

For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.

Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.

The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.

The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?

We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX

10 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).

For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.

Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.

The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.

The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?

We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX

10 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).

For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.

Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.

The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.

The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?

We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX

Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024

13 June 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has recently been brought to our attention that publications from MIM Distributors sent to XXXXXX XXXXX (XXXXXX) have been censored by your office. Mr. XXXXXXX reports that MIM Theory 13 and three issues of MIM Notes were rejected on the basis that they were ?racist.? We have not seen the official rejection notice, nor have we been notified of this censorship. I assume the materials have not been returned yet as the decision is still under review. But I am requesting a copy of the rejection notice, and any other rejection notices for our materials, so that we may effectively review and remedy this problem.

Thank you in advance for a timely response,

Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024

27 July 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

On June 13 I wrote you to request documentation supporting the decision to censor MIM Theory 13 and MIM Notes 332-4. To date I have not received a response from you, but I have received copies of the Media Review decisions from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXXXX. He has already filed appeals to these decisions, as well as the decision to censor the Party Bulletin #3 by the New Afrikan Maoist Party. The purpose of this letter is also to request a review of these decisions.

Let me start with the NAMP?s Party Bulletin, since that is the easiest. Your staff cited pages 12 and 14 of Issue 3 as the objectionable sections, with no further justification. I have read these pages and all they contain is decisions by the organization regarding publishing articles and organization. Neither of these documents directly address prisoners or promote any kind of activity, lawless or not. So I am quite confident that you will find no reason to continue to hold this publication from inmates at Auburn.

For the 3 issues of MIM Notes staff cited pages 10 + 11, which contain ?Under Lock + Key? and ?MIM on Prisons and Prisoners.? These pages contain critiques of the prison system by MIM and MIM?s readers behind bars. Nowhere in those pages does MIM advocate breaking any rules or laws. It is illegal to censor materials because you do not agree with their views, even if they are critical of your institution.

The most interesting decision was that to censor MIM Theory 13. It seems that all of the portions that were deemed unacceptable by the FMRC are critical of the very things that the FMRC claims to be opposed to. The first objection is to the article ?On Prison Leadership? for allegedly promoting lawlessness and disobedience among prisoners. Yet this article criticizes prisoners for assaulting Correctional Officers and claiming it is a political act. Elsewhere the author criticizes those who use force to keep others in their organizations. Exactly the kind of behavior that prison officials all over the country are also trying to prevent. While you may not agree with all of the author?s views on prisons, certainly you can unite on these issues, which are at the heart of the objections raised by the FMRC.

The next problem that the FMRC had with MT13 is alleged ?racist imagery.? This imagery is in two pieces of art. One uses a Klansman on the flag of the United States to criticize institutionalized racism and violence against Black people. The other uses a klansman again for the same purpose of criticizing white power among the police. In both pieces of art it is clear that the use of the klansman image is being used to oppose and not promote racism. The first even has a caption explaining the art in case readers are confused about the message behind it. To censor an anti-racist cartoon for being ?racist imagery? is contradictory to the goal of combating the problem of racism in the first place.

Lastly, the FMRC cites a review of Hitler?s Mein Kampf as objectionable. As if talking about a racist person is somehow promoting racist ideology. I am sure you would not censor other magazines that talk about Hitler as figure of history, and there is no justification for censoring MIM Theory for doing the same.

In light of these points, I hope you will find that there are no legal justifications for the refusal to allow Mr. XXXXXX and others at Auburn Correctional Facility to receive MIM?s publications.

Once again I request your review of these matters and your response to my requests. We do not take these matters lightly and we will continue to ensure that our First Amendment rights to speech and affiliation are upheld.

Thank you for your time,

Mailroom Supervisor
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
PO Box 1000
Boscobel, WI 53805-0900

9 September, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of two notices of non-delivery of issue 4 (July 2007) of our publication, the Party Bulletin. In response to these notices I would like to request a copy of your Administrative Code pertaining to mailroom policy, particularly DOC 309.04(4)c 8. c., which is cited in the notices. We are also requesting that you review decisions in light of the lack of substantiating evidence for the reasoning given, as I will expand upon below.

The first box checked on the reason section of the notice reads, ?Item concerns an activity, which if completed would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the United States or the Administrative Rules of the Department of Corrections.? I can assure you that the Party Bulletin does not advocate any activities that violate the laws of the U.S. nor of Wisconsin. I can also say, that we would never knowingly encourage a prisoner in Wisconsin to break the established rules of the DOC. So if there is an activity that would break said rules in our publications, please notify me immediately and I will take appropriate action to deal with your concerns.

The second reason checked reads, ?Item poses a threat to the security, orderly operation, discipline or safety of the institution.? Since we do expressly advocate that prisoners do not break the rules in their facilities, I don?t believe there is any basis for this statement. In fact, over the years We have seen much evidence that prisoners engaged in political dialogue and organizing get into much less trouble than average and usually avoid any sort of altercations with staff or other prisoners.

Finally, the Sergeant wrote, ?newsletter is inciteful [sic] and promotes racial segregation.? I am not sure what exactly the Sergeant is referring to when s/he states that it is ?inciteful? or why that is necessarily a problem. In regard to promoting racial segregation, I assume you are referring to page 13 under Principles, where it is stated that We promote an independent New Afrikan people with Our own territory. You will note that in those very principles we define the New Afrikan nation as those who are a part of the culture and political current in support of the rights and self-determination of New Afrikan people. There are no racial requirements for joining Our movement. We don?t even believe that the grouping of people into biological races has any real scientific significance. We promote the freedom, independence and self-determination for all people in the form that they as a group decide for themselves.

We are familiar with the prevalence of ?racial strife? in the prison system across the country and sympathize with the concern of keeping those who would promote such conflict out of your facility. But please, do not make the oft-repeated mistake of calling the oppressed racist when We attempt to organize for Our rights as oppressed groups. A rereading of the Declaration of Independence will demonstrate the very ideas that we are promoting on page 13 were part of what led to the independence of the United States itself and that the founding fathers upheld the rights of any group of people to do as they did when the situation demanded.

The controversy seems to be over the political content of Our newsletter, which is not subject to the approval of prison staff. We hope that upon review you will agree with us on this matter and allow these two brothers to receive the Party Bulletin Issue 4, and all future issues. Please also send us a copy of your Administrative Code to help us avoid these problems in the future. We look forward to your response and appreciate your efforts to work this out with Us.

Mailroom Supervisor
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
PO Box 1000
Boscobel, WI 53805-0900

9 September, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of two notices of non-delivery of issue 4 (July 2007) of our publication, the Party Bulletin. In response to these notices I would like to request a copy of your Administrative Code pertaining to mailroom policy, particularly DOC 309.04(4)c 8. c., which is cited in the notices. We are also requesting that you review decisions in light of the lack of substantiating evidence for the reasoning given, as I will expand upon below.

The first box checked on the reason section of the notice reads, ?Item concerns an activity, which if completed would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the United States or the Administrative Rules of the Department of Corrections.? I can assure you that the Party Bulletin does not advocate any activities that violate the laws of the U.S. nor of Wisconsin. I can also say, that we would never knowingly encourage a prisoner in Wisconsin to break the established rules of the DOC. So if there is an activity that would break said rules in our publications, please notify me immediately and I will take appropriate action to deal with your concerns.

The second reason checked reads, ?Item poses a threat to the security, orderly operation, discipline or safety of the institution.? Since we do expressly advocate that prisoners do not break the rules in their facilities, I don?t believe there is any basis for this statement. In fact, over the years We have seen much evidence that prisoners engaged in political dialogue and organizing get into much less trouble than average and usually avoid any sort of altercations with staff or other prisoners.

Finally, the Sergeant wrote, ?newsletter is inciteful [sic] and promotes racial segregation.? I am not sure what exactly the Sergeant is referring to when s/he states that it is ?inciteful? or why that is necessarily a problem. In regard to promoting racial segregation, I assume you are referring to page 13 under Principles, where it is stated that We promote an independent New Afrikan people with Our own territory. You will note that in those very principles we define the New Afrikan nation as those who are a part of the culture and political current in support of the rights and self-determination of New Afrikan people. There are no racial requirements for joining Our movement. We don?t even believe that the grouping of people into biological races has any real scientific significance. We promote the freedom, independence and self-determination for all people in the form that they as a group decide for themselves.

We are familiar with the prevalence of ?racial strife? in the prison system across the country and sympathize with the concern of keeping those who would promote such conflict out of your facility. But please, do not make the oft-repeated mistake of calling the oppressed racist when We attempt to organize for Our rights as oppressed groups. A rereading of the Declaration of Independence will demonstrate the very ideas that we are promoting on page 13 were part of what led to the independence of the United States itself and that the founding fathers upheld the rights of any group of people to do as they did when the situation demanded.

The controversy seems to be over the political content of Our newsletter, which is not subject to the approval of prison staff. We hope that upon review you will agree with us on this matter and allow these two brothers to receive the Party Bulletin Issue 4, and all future issues. Please also send us a copy of your Administrative Code to help us avoid these problems in the future. We look forward to your response and appreciate your efforts to work this out with Us.