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

Rick Jackson, Administrator
Lanesboro Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 280
Polkson, NC 28135

August 31, 2009

Administrator Jackson,

This letter is to inquire about mail that has been censored from prisoner X that was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. Mr. X and MIM have been in regular contact for several months when we stopped hearing from him. As it turns out, he hasn't received the last three items we've sent to him. One is a study group assignment that MIM runs, and the other two are issue 8 (May 2009) and issue 9 (July 2009) of the newsletter Under Lock & Key.

Neither Mr. X, nor MIM Distributors were notified by the mail room that this mail was denied. This, of course, violates federal law Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800 which states that "The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor."

We request that in the future your mail room notifies Mr. Carter and MIM Distributors of censorship. Also, we request to know why the mail mentioned was denied delivery. If you could please mail us a copy of the Lanesboro CI mail rules, that would be of great help.

We look forward to your response.

MIM(Prisons)

CC: affected parties

Correspondence Review Committee
Hoke Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 700
Raeford, NC 28376

16 August 2009

Dear Madam/Sir,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).

Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.


Thank you for your time,

Correspondence Review Committee
Hoke Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 700
Raeford, NC 28376

16 August 2009

Dear Madam/Sir,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).

Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.


Thank you for your time,

T. Walser, Asst. Supt. of Custody and Operations
Polk Correctional Institution
PO Box 2500
Butner, NC 27509

28 May 2009

Asst. Supt. Walser,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #7 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX from MIM Distributors. You first cite D.0310( C ) as the reason. That rule states that the mail concerns sending contraband such as stamps, cash or stickers. The newsletter is mailed to thousands all over the country in the same format and I can assure you that it contained no such contraband.

The disapproval reason page also has text entered in reason D.0310(E). This text claims that ULK 7 could be a threat to safety and security if distributed. I think that upon review, if you read the content of the newsletter you will find that the whole message of ULK 7 is to promote defending human rights via legal avenues while opposing the use of violent or illegal retaliation for abuse within prisons.

It is confusing because the reason states that it ?could be detrimental to the safety and security of the information.?, perhaps this is a typo? If so what exactly is it a threat to the safety and security of? Can you cite the paragraph, article and page that could pose such risk?

The main message of ULK 7 is to promote peaceful means of dealing with conflicts and abuse within prisons, so I find it odd that the department chose to censor this publication for the reason given. If upon review you are not convinced that Mr. XXXXXX should receive ULK 7, please notify us of such decision and your reasoning behind it.


Thank you for your time,