Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Daniel Burns, Superintendent
SCI Laurel Highlands
5706 Glades Pike
P.O. Box 631
Somerset, PA 15501-0631

27 November 2010

Dear Superintendent Burns,

On 21 September 2010 we were informed by Mr. XXX, a prisoner at SCI Laurel Highlands, that a study group assignment we sent to him was censored due to "copyright infringement." I have included a copy of the material that you mailroom staff allege is in violation of copyright law.

As you can clearly see, at the top of the page is identifying information of the source of the material, which is "MIM Theory - Number 7 - 1995." First, MIM Theory magazines are not copyrighted in any form or fashion. Second, even if they were copyrighted, you can see by our return address and the stationary header, the organization who sent this material to Mr. XXXXXX is MIM Distributors. The organization that runs our prisoner study groups is called MIM(Prisons). Both organizations MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) obviously have permission to be copying and distributing MIM Theory materials, even if it isn't clear to mailroom staff that the magazine as a whole is not copyrighted.

Mr. XXX is enrolled in the next study group session which will be using photocopies of MIM Theory as study material. It is imperative that your mailroom staff is properly trained on how to handle suspected copyright infringement. It is also your legal obligation to ensure that your mailroom staff are not arbitrarily denying prisoners or MIM Distributors their First Amendment rights.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Brian V. Coleman, Superintendent
SCI Fayette
50 Overlook Dr.
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

27 November 2010

Dear Superintendent Coleman,

This letter is regarding several articles of mail that were sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at SCI Fayette. These articles of mail were not received by Mr. XXX, not returned to MIM Distributors, and neither parties were notified of a rejection of the items by SCI Fayette mailroom staff. The items in question were letters as well as a magazine titled MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism and a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 16(September/October 2010). The articles of mail were sent in during August and September 2010.

I would like to request (1) an investigation of the illegal denial without notification practice of SCI Fayette mailroom staff, (2) an investigation into why these articles of mail were denied by SCI Fayette mailroom staff, and (3) an immediate end to the tampering with mail between MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX. If you can come up with a reason why the mail was denied by mailroom staff, then (4) I would like to make an appeal for a second review by someone other than who made the initial rejection, because I am sure upon further review you will find no valid reason to censor these items.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Superintendent Brian V. Coleman
SCI-Fayette
50 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

4 January 2011

Dear Superintendent Coleman,

Thank you for your response to my 27 November 2010 letter. In your response you suggest that MIM Distributors did not send the articles in question, or that our mail carrier is the root of the problem. However, I assure you that MIM Distributors did in actuality send the mail to Mr. XXX as stated in our last letter to you. I also find it hard to believe your other claim that the USPS failed to deliver the number of letters in question. Is this a frequent problem that you have with your local USPS carrier? I think that you are trying to lay the blame on innocent parties, and I believe that the mailroom staff at SCI-Fayette are responsible for this censorship.

In your response you also say that Mr. XXX did not file a grievance regarding this issue. It wouldn't make sense for Mr. XXX to grieve the obstruction of MIM Distributors's First Amendment right, which is the protest I am raising in this letter. Of course he should file a grievance regarding his own Constitutional rights, but not ours. If your mailroom staff is simply throwing away mail from MIM Distributors without notifying anyone that this mail is received, what safeguards can you offer me that staff at SCI-Fayette are not interfering with MIM Distributors' right to free speech under the First Amendment?

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

I appealed the rejection of ULK 14 and DOC HQ ruled in my favor, and remanded saying that SCI-Mahanoy staff denied #14 without due cause. Warden John Kerestes said it was originally denied for page 5.