Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Item(s) rejected:
3 used "Under Lcoc[sic] & Key" publications

Reason:
Item contains contraband

Item(s) rejected:
3 used "Under Lcoc[sic] & Key" publications

Reason:
Item contains contraband

Item(s) rejected:
3 used "Under Lcoc[sic] & Key" publications

Reason:
Item contains contraband

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

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions 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 the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

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

3 June 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 31

Dear Mr. Dormire,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, March/April, Issue #31 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

Since various reasons have been given by different wardens I have included the documents stating their reasons. Below I will attempt to briefly address them as I understand them.

Staff at Jefferson City Correctional Center cite "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" and they refer to page 15. This was the same rule cited to censor issue #30, which you agreed was in error back in April. However, this time I'm not even sure what this rule is in reference to as the contents of page 15 of Under Lock & Key #31 is merely an article on education, a description of the organization that publishes the newsletter and a reader survey.

The explanations from Western Missouri Correctional Center and Southeast Correctional Center both make reference to the newsletter explaining how to organize a group. Omer Clark cites page 2 of the newsletter, which is merely a description of the organizations that write and produce the newsletter. That page also discourages the use of violence against staff and other prisoners. It seems that to censor literature for containing such descriptions would lead to an across the board ban on any literature that is published by "an organization."

I hope that you can clarify these matters for us as well as those attempting to censor our mail. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

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

3 June 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 31

Dear Mr. Dormire,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, March/April, Issue #31 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

Since various reasons have been given by different wardens I have included the documents stating their reasons. Below I will attempt to briefly address them as I understand them.

Staff at Jefferson City Correctional Center cite "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" and they refer to page 15. This was the same rule cited to censor issue #30, which you agreed was in error back in April. However, this time I'm not even sure what this rule is in reference to as the contents of page 15 of Under Lock & Key #31 is merely an article on education, a description of the organization that publishes the newsletter and a reader survey.

The explanations from Western Missouri Correctional Center and Southeast Correctional Center both make reference to the newsletter explaining how to organize a group. Omer Clark cites page 2 of the newsletter, which is merely a description of the organizations that write and produce the newsletter. That page also discourages the use of violence against staff and other prisoners. It seems that to censor literature for containing such descriptions would lead to an across the board ban on any literature that is published by "an organization."

I hope that you can clarify these matters for us as well as those attempting to censor our mail. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

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

3 June 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 31

Dear Mr. Dormire,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, March/April, Issue #31 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

Since various reasons have been given by different wardens I have included the documents stating their reasons. Below I will attempt to briefly address them as I understand them.

Staff at Jefferson City Correctional Center cite "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" and they refer to page 15. This was the same rule cited to censor issue #30, which you agreed was in error back in April. However, this time I'm not even sure what this rule is in reference to as the contents of page 15 of Under Lock & Key #31 is merely an article on education, a description of the organization that publishes the newsletter and a reader survey.

The explanations from Western Missouri Correctional Center and Southeast Correctional Center both make reference to the newsletter explaining how to organize a group. Omer Clark cites page 2 of the newsletter, which is merely a description of the organizations that write and produce the newsletter. That page also discourages the use of violence against staff and other prisoners. It seems that to censor literature for containing such descriptions would lead to an across the board ban on any literature that is published by "an organization."

I hope that you can clarify these matters for us as well as those attempting to censor our mail. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

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

3 June 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 31

Dear Mr. Dormire,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, March/April, Issue #31 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

Since various reasons have been given by different wardens I have included the documents stating their reasons. Below I will attempt to briefly address them as I understand them.

Staff at Jefferson City Correctional Center cite "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" and they refer to page 15. This was the same rule cited to censor issue #30, which you agreed was in error back in April. However, this time I'm not even sure what this rule is in reference to as the contents of page 15 of Under Lock & Key #31 is merely an article on education, a description of the organization that publishes the newsletter and a reader survey.

The explanations from Western Missouri Correctional Center and Southeast Correctional Center both make reference to the newsletter explaining how to organize a group. Omer Clark cites page 2 of the newsletter, which is merely a description of the organizations that write and produce the newsletter. That page also discourages the use of violence against staff and other prisoners. It seems that to censor literature for containing such descriptions would lead to an across the board ban on any literature that is published by "an organization."

I hope that you can clarify these matters for us as well as those attempting to censor our mail. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

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

26 January 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 35

Dear Mr. Dormire,

This letter is in response to two letters from your department notifying us of the censorship of issue 35 of Under Lock & Key. While Warden Steele at Potosi only gives a vague justification that it somehow promotes violence, Warden Stange from Southeast Correctional Center points to an article ?A message to street organizations: Ride or Die! Unite or Perish!? on pages 3-5 as ?promot[ing] anarchy.? That article is a call for peace and unity, the opposite of violence and anarchy, so it seems there is another agenda behind the censorship. There is a history of staff at Southeast Correctional Center targeting members of the organization that authored that article because of their political disagreements. However, as we know, political disagreement is not legal justification for such actions by government employees.

I am requesting that you review this incident of censorship and notify us of your decision.


Thank you for your time,

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

5 March 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 36

Dear Mr. Dormire,

First let me acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 10th supporting my appeal of the previous issue of ULK. Thank you for that.

This letter is in response to the latest letter from Crossroads Corr. Ctr. Warden Larry Denney notifying us of the censorship of issue 36 of Under Lock & Key. In it he cites pages 6-7 of that issue claiming they ?may provoke disorder.? There is one essay spanning those pages from a former prisoner describing his/her feelings about his/her release, but I do not see what part of that article would be provoking disorder.

I am requesting that you review this incident of censorship and notify us of your decision.

In addition, despite a number of decisions by you overturning censorship by prison wardens in Missouri, we have seen a steep decline in confirmed mail received by prisoners across the state. I am requesting that you help us ensure that your decisions are enforced and that mail that is deemed to be appropriate is in fact delivered to prisoners. We will continue to monitor this apparent decline in our mail reaching its intended recipients in Missouri.


Thank you for your time,

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

5 March 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 36

Dear Mr. Dormire,

First let me acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 10th supporting my appeal of the previous issue of ULK. Thank you for that.

This letter is in response to the latest letter from Crossroads Corr. Ctr. Warden Larry Denney notifying us of the censorship of issue 36 of Under Lock & Key. In it he cites pages 6-7 of that issue claiming they ?may provoke disorder.? There is one essay spanning those pages from a former prisoner describing his/her feelings about his/her release, but I do not see what part of that article would be provoking disorder.

I am requesting that you review this incident of censorship and notify us of your decision.

In addition, despite a number of decisions by you overturning censorship by prison wardens in Missouri, we have seen a steep decline in confirmed mail received by prisoners across the state. I am requesting that you help us ensure that your decisions are enforced and that mail that is deemed to be appropriate is in fact delivered to prisoners. We will continue to monitor this apparent decline in our mail reaching its intended recipients in Missouri.


Thank you for your time,

I spoke to the grievance officer here and they told me that they have no record of my recieving issue #36 nor did they recieve any documentation from the director of MO DOC to issue it to anyone, despite seeing my copy of the memo sent to you.

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

5 June 2014

RE: Delivery of Under Lock & Key Issue 36

Dear Mr. Dormire,

I am in receipt of your letter from 19 March 2014 supporting my appeal of the censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 36. I appreciate you taking the time to address my appeal once again and deciding against the censorship. However, as I've mentioned previously, there seems to be a lack of action behind your decisions on these appeals.

In the case of issue 36 of Under Lock & Key, Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX at Moberly Correctional Center requested his copy and reports:

?I spoke to the grievance officer here and they told me that they have no record of my receiving issue #36 nor did they receive any documentation from the director of MO DOC to issue it to anyone, despite seeing my copy of the memo sent to you.?

It seems there are two problems here. First that the local staff are claiming that the publication was never sent to Mr. XXXXXX in the first place and subsequently censored by the mailroom. Second, they are claiming to have no documentation from you indicating that they should deliver the publication. In addition, after Mr. XXXXXX showed them a copy of your letter, they still failed to act to remedy the situation.

I am requesting that DOC process mail according to procedure and that decisions to overturn censorship be communicated to each facility and that mail be delivered in a timely manner following such decisions.


As always, thank you for your attention to these matters,

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

16 June 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 37

Dear Mr. Dormire,

Warden Troy Steele recently sent a notice to MIM Distributors notifying us of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 37 at Potosi Correctional Center. He did not specify what contents triggered this censorship, except to state that he felt it could ?be used to instill violence or hatred among? prisoners. I am requesting an independent review of this decision.

I hope you also received my recent letter regarding the difficulties we've been having in getting staff at some facilities to abide by the review decisions made by your office to allow certain issues of Under Lock & Key to be delivered to Missouri prisoners.

Thank you,

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

16 June 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 37

Dear Mr. Dormire,

Warden Troy Steele recently sent a notice to MIM Distributors notifying us of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 37 at Potosi Correctional Center. He did not specify what contents triggered this censorship, except to state that he felt it could ?be used to instill violence or hatred among? prisoners. I am requesting an independent review of this decision.

I hope you also received my recent letter regarding the difficulties we've been having in getting staff at some facilities to abide by the review decisions made by your office to allow certain issues of Under Lock & Key to be delivered to Missouri prisoners.

Thank you,

Reason .0109D
Violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its institutions.
Page Number(s): 4
Reason for Disapproval: Encourages insurrection and disorder.

Prisoner chooses to appeal censorship.
Explain your appeal:
1st Amendment rights

Correspondence... have been reviewed by the Correspondence Review Committee.
It has been determined that you cannot possess this correspondence and or contents.

Contents witheld only? X
Describe contents: Copy of book

Rease .0310 E The mail concerns plans to violate departmental rules and policies necessary to maintain security and control.

Comments: Correspondence violates DOC Policy & Procedure, in that the item(s) were mailed from a source other than a legitimate publisher.

Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531

May 23, 2013

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letter sent to xxx

Dear Warden Lewis,

I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison. On April 2, 2014 I (yyy) mailed Mr. xxx a letter which was denied. I received a Stopped Mail Notification stating that this letter "Promoted gang activities" with the additional information "Material contained within the mailing is BGF Gang-related material." In fact, the letter contained material related to the W.L. Nolen Mentorship Program (WLNMP) and is unrelated to the BGF or any prison-designated "gang." The prison's own Notification of Disapproval states that the incoming material was "1 incoming letter & pamphlet (WL. Nolen)" affirming our assertion that this is not BGF material.

It has already been successfully proven that the W.L. Nolen Mentorship Program is part of the Black liberation movement and not a prison gang in the case of XXXXXX L. XXXXXX v. Pelican Bay State Prison, case no: HCPB-04-5054.

The mission statement of the WLNMP is very clear on this point. The W.L. Nolen Mentorship Program is a community-based pen pal service. Participants of the program are encouraged to discuss and write about any personal issue that they may need mentorship with in the following areas: "1) violence prevention and intervention; 2) developing critical thinking skills; 3) cultural tolerance and sensitivity; 4) alternatives to joining gangs; 5) support for single mothas; 6) economic empowerment; 7) how to overcome alcohol and drug addiction; 8) domestic violence conflict resolution; 9) avoiding negative peer pressure; and 10) providing tools to help develop community responsibility and awareness." Clearly you can see how this Mentorship Program is not gang-related.

With the present letter, I request:
- an independent review of the denial of this letter;
- prompt delivery of this letter to its intended recipient;
- notification from Pelican Bay State Prison mailroom staff of any future decisions to deny mail from yyy to my intended recipient, in accordance with the CDCR DOM and Federal law.

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

Sincerely,

yyy

CC: Affected parties