Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Superintendent Keith Butts
1000 Van Nuys Road
PO Box E
New Castle, IN 47362

February 6, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of publication to Mr. xxx

Dear Superintendent Butts,

On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 35 (November/December 2013) to the above-named prisoner held at New Castle Correctional Facility. The publication was mailed via Presorted Standard mail. The publication was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed" on the outside.

The prisoner's address is correct according to the Indiana Department of Correction Offender Search, and this prisoner has since written to MIM Distributors from New Castle. Yet, this returned publication was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court 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
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Publication Review Committee
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 E. 2603 Road
Sheridan, IL 60551

February 6, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x

Dear PRC,

Mr. x is a prisoner housed at Sheridan Correctional Center. Recently MIM Distributors has sent Mr. x multiple pieces of mail, and they have been returned to MIM Distributors without following proper procedures for censorship.

On September 27, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 34 (September/October 2013) via Presorted Standard mail with the USPS. The publication was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "not allowed" written on the envelope, and no other information provided. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

On October 21, 2013, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. x a letter weighing less than one ounce, via First Class Mail with the USPS. This letter was returned to MIM Distributors with "not allowed" written on the envelope, and it was also unopened. Again, no information was provided as to why this letter was "not allowed" and no Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 was sent to MIM Distributors.

The common thread is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.

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."

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
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden Marcus Hardy

Warden Thomas Mackie
Baraga Correctional Facility
13924 Wadaga Road
Baraga, MI 49908-9204

January 7, 2014

Dear Warden Mackie,

On December 18, 2013, we received a censorship determination from your Department regarding our publication titled Under Lock & Key issue no. 35 (November/December 2013), which was sent to Mr. xxx.

The determination states that the publication was ?disapproved? for delivery to the inmate because page 2 of the publication allegedly violates PD 05.03.118 "Prisoner Mail." The specific reason for the censorship is that the publication is a "threat to the order and security" (?Prisoners prohibited from receiving mail that is a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the facility, that may facilitate or encourage criminal activity, or that may interfere with the rehabilitation of the prisoner.?).

With the present letter MIM Distributors appeals the negative determination and requests the decision be reversed and the publication be delivered to Mr. xxx as soon as possible.

The page mentioned on the letter to the publisher focuses on the United Front for Peace in Prisons, which is clearly not a threat to the safety of any person, and is in fact an attempt to quell the violence that runs rampant all across the prison system. This attempt is not without basis; unity around common principles has been proven historically to eliminate violence among differing groups, even in prisons. How can information on making peace within prisons be a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system? Without doubt, if there were less prisoner-on-prisoner violence, it would relieve much of the occupational hazard for Correctional Officers and actually increase the security and good order of the correctional system, and personal self-discipline of the prisoners.

The content on page 2 which is not related to the United Front for Peace in Prisons contains political considerations on imperialism and a description of what Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons is and does. This information is certainly political, but does not constitute at any rate a threat to the security of the institution. Let me remind you that your ownPolicy Directive 05.03.118 Prisoner Mail, under "General Information" at Section D states that ?Mail shall not be prohibited solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.?

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has already stated in Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974) and in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490, U.S. at 416 n. 14 (1989), that prison officials violate the First Amendment when, for reasons unrelated to legitimate penological interests, they engage in ?censorship of . . . expression of 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'.?

Lastly, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

Based on the above considerations, we request that the censorship determination be reversed and that the publication be allowed to prisoners held at any facility of your Department.

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

Sincerely,

Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Warden Thomas Mackie
Baraga Correctional Facility
13924 Wadaga Road
Baraga, MI 49908-9204

February 6, 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 35 (November/December 2013)

Dear Warden Mackie,

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 24. 2014, in which you say that the above named publication is still being denied delivery to its intended recipients held in Baraga Correctional Facility.

The piece of the publication you quoted as grounds for censorship can be found on page 4 of the issue. The argument being made in the article is not that prisoners should link up with street organizations, as you claim in your letter. The argument being made is "If the power to end violence exists within our communities, then we should be looking for ways to increase our power, and we should be looking for ways to exercise it." The entire point of the article is decreasing violence and increasing peace.

The author goes on to state "The problem is that most street organizations are moving in the wrong direction [toward violence]. They're engaging in the wrong social practices which are retarding the growth and development of our people." The author states that the point of this article is to "put an end to police brutality, homelessness, hunger, war, etc." The article is a discussion on how to increase peace in oppressed communities, which would include within prisons. Nothing here points to a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the facility, unless you include prisoner in-fighting as part of the "good order" of the facility.

I look forward to your response and the imminent delivery of this publication to Mr. xxx, as it was originally intended.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

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

February 2, 2014

This letter is to request an appeal of the rejection of Under Lock & Key Nov/Dec 2013 N35. The notification we received, dated January 23, 2014, indicated that the reason for rejection was: "Publications contains 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." And in the "remarks" section this information is added: "Reason C. Page 6 contains material of a racial nature."

Your notification does not specify what on page 6 is intended to achieve a breakdown of the prison. That page includes just two articles. The first is a continuation from an article from page 5 discussing the origins of racism and it's theoretical basis in nations in modern society. This article focuses on how to eliminate racism in the United States, and the world. The second article is about a South Carolina group of prisoners interested in uniting with others who are organizing for peace in prisons. There is absolutely nothing on that page that could be construed as racial, it is in fact the exact opposite: a page of information about how to overcome racism and achieve unity.

We are concerned that the reviewers of this publication did not actually read the page in question (or the publication at all). It is our contention that the reason for rejection would require content that can not be found within the pages of Under Lock & Key. Further, it is clear that the citation of page 6 indicates a complete lack of understanding of the actual content within this publication.

We request an appeal of this decision.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

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

February 2, 2014

This letter is to request an appeal of the rejection of Under Lock & Key Nov/Dec 2013 N35. The notification we received, dated January 23, 2014, indicated that the reason for rejection was: "Publications contains 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." And in the "remarks" section this information is added: "Reason C. Page 6 contains material of a racial nature."

Your notification does not specify what on page 6 is intended to achieve a breakdown of the prison. That page includes just two articles. The first is a continuation from an article from page 5 discussing the origins of racism and it's theoretical basis in nations in modern society. This article focuses on how to eliminate racism in the United States, and the world. The second article is about a South Carolina group of prisoners interested in uniting with others who are organizing for peace in prisons. There is absolutely nothing on that page that could be construed as racial, it is in fact the exact opposite: a page of information about how to overcome racism and achieve unity.

We are concerned that the reviewers of this publication did not actually read the page in question (or the publication at all). It is our contention that the reason for rejection would require content that can not be found within the pages of Under Lock & Key. Further, it is clear that the citation of page 6 indicates a complete lack of understanding of the actual content within this publication.

We request an appeal of this decision.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

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

February 2, 2014

This letter is to request an appeal of the rejection of Under Lock & Key Nov/Dec 2013 N35. The notification we received, dated January 23, 2014, indicated that the reason for rejection was: "Publications contains 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." And in the "remarks" section this information is added: "Reason C. Page 6 contains material of a racial nature."

Your notification does not specify what on page 6 is intended to achieve a breakdown of the prison. That page includes just two articles. The first is a continuation from an article from page 5 discussing the origins of racism and it's theoretical basis in nations in modern society. This article focuses on how to eliminate racism in the United States, and the world. The second article is about a South Carolina group of prisoners interested in uniting with others who are organizing for peace in prisons. There is absolutely nothing on that page that could be construed as racial, it is in fact the exact opposite: a page of information about how to overcome racism and achieve unity.

We are concerned that the reviewers of this publication did not actually read the page in question (or the publication at all). It is our contention that the reason for rejection would require content that can not be found within the pages of Under Lock & Key. Further, it is clear that the citation of page 6 indicates a complete lack of understanding of the actual content within this publication.

We request an appeal of this decision.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties