Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

31 January 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35

To Ms. Bostic,

On January 22, 2014 MIM Distributors received notice of censorship of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, issue number 35. Once again, the reason given was ?A code? and page 2 was cited. Once again, I am requesting an independent review of this decision.

When you respond, I am requesting that you provide an explanation of what portion of Under Lock & Key you find objectionable and why. To date you have not told me what the reason is for censoring Under Lock & Key, nor have you told me what portion of page 2 is objectionable to you. As I have pointed out to you countless times now, your claims cannot be addressed if you do not tell us what they are. If you cannot provide me with this information, please explain to me why this is not possible. Your refusal to do so will be regarded as a lack of good faith in resolving the ongoing obstruction of MIM Distributors mail to prisoners held by the state of North Carolina.


Please respond,

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

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

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,