Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

18 January 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

In December, 2009 the mail room at Florida State Prison (FSP) began returning mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to request a review of these decisions and to re-establish contact with prisoners at FSP.

Mailroom personnel P. Goodman has signed off on a number of ?Unauthorized Mail Return Receipts? for mail sent to Mr. XXX YYY. Two packages of reading material were returned for the reasons that an ?excess of 15 pages? was enclosed. As a known distributor, any publications sent from MIM Distributors should be processed as ?Admissible Reading Material? in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 33-501.401and not as ?Routine Mail.? ?Admissible Reading Material? does not have a page limit. Many small run publications are printed on plain white paper, but are clearly not letters due to their size and content.

In a third return receipt from P. Goodman they claim that the letter somehow promotes violence or disruption because ?it about gangs.? A portion of the letter discusses the Crips in a historical context. It does not discuss or promote acts of violence or the breaking of any laws or rules. The court?s decision in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 is clear that there must be a substantiated threat, and that censorship cannot be based on political or historical discussions.

Earlier in the same month, Issue 11 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key sent to a number of prisoners was impounded for review. This was done correctly applying Rule 33-501.401, yet on the notices none of the criteria set forth in Section (3) of the rule were specified to have been violated. The notice did list page numbers and descriptions of the content including, ?About Movements And gangs?, ?About (KKK)? and ?About Gangs?. Each description is factually correct, so the question is do these items violate any of the criteria laid out? As part of a prisoners? 1st Amendment rights protected under established case law, he may read, correspond with and participate in political organizations. Saying the word ?KKK? or ?gang? is not a threat to anyone.

I am requesting that 1) Under Lock & Key be released from impound and distributed to each subscriber, 2) that packages from MIM Distributors be handled as ?Admissible Reading Material? and not ?Routine Mail? and 3) that XXX YYY be allowed to read and study without harassment or undo restrictions. Please notify MIM Distributors at the address above of your decisions.

Sincerely,

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

18 January 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

In December, 2009 the mail room at Florida State Prison (FSP) began returning mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to request a review of these decisions and to re-establish contact with prisoners at FSP.

Mailroom personnel P. Goodman has signed off on a number of ?Unauthorized Mail Return Receipts? for mail sent to Mr. XXX YYY. Two packages of reading material were returned for the reasons that an ?excess of 15 pages? was enclosed. As a known distributor, any publications sent from MIM Distributors should be processed as ?Admissible Reading Material? in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 33-501.401and not as ?Routine Mail.? ?Admissible Reading Material? does not have a page limit. Many small run publications are printed on plain white paper, but are clearly not letters due to their size and content.

In a third return receipt from P. Goodman they claim that the letter somehow promotes violence or disruption because ?it about gangs.? A portion of the letter discusses the Crips in a historical context. It does not discuss or promote acts of violence or the breaking of any laws or rules. The court?s decision in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 is clear that there must be a substantiated threat, and that censorship cannot be based on political or historical discussions.

Earlier in the same month, Issue 11 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key sent to a number of prisoners was impounded for review. This was done correctly applying Rule 33-501.401, yet on the notices none of the criteria set forth in Section (3) of the rule were specified to have been violated. The notice did list page numbers and descriptions of the content including, ?About Movements And gangs?, ?About (KKK)? and ?About Gangs?. Each description is factually correct, so the question is do these items violate any of the criteria laid out? As part of a prisoners? 1st Amendment rights protected under established case law, he may read, correspond with and participate in political organizations. Saying the word ?KKK? or ?gang? is not a threat to anyone.

I am requesting that 1) Under Lock & Key be released from impound and distributed to each subscriber, 2) that packages from MIM Distributors be handled as ?Admissible Reading Material? and not ?Routine Mail? and 3) that XXX YYY be allowed to read and study without harassment or undo restrictions. Please notify MIM Distributors at the address above of your decisions.

Sincerely,

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

18 January 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

In December, 2009 the mail room at Florida State Prison (FSP) began returning mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to request a review of these decisions and to re-establish contact with prisoners at FSP.

Mailroom personnel P. Goodman has signed off on a number of ?Unauthorized Mail Return Receipts? for mail sent to Mr. XXX YYY. Two packages of reading material were returned for the reasons that an ?excess of 15 pages? was enclosed. As a known distributor, any publications sent from MIM Distributors should be processed as ?Admissible Reading Material? in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 33-501.401and not as ?Routine Mail.? ?Admissible Reading Material? does not have a page limit. Many small run publications are printed on plain white paper, but are clearly not letters due to their size and content.

In a third return receipt from P. Goodman they claim that the letter somehow promotes violence or disruption because ?it about gangs.? A portion of the letter discusses the Crips in a historical context. It does not discuss or promote acts of violence or the breaking of any laws or rules. The court?s decision in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 is clear that there must be a substantiated threat, and that censorship cannot be based on political or historical discussions.

Earlier in the same month, Issue 11 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key sent to a number of prisoners was impounded for review. This was done correctly applying Rule 33-501.401, yet on the notices none of the criteria set forth in Section (3) of the rule were specified to have been violated. The notice did list page numbers and descriptions of the content including, ?About Movements And gangs?, ?About (KKK)? and ?About Gangs?. Each description is factually correct, so the question is do these items violate any of the criteria laid out? As part of a prisoners? 1st Amendment rights protected under established case law, he may read, correspond with and participate in political organizations. Saying the word ?KKK? or ?gang? is not a threat to anyone.

I am requesting that 1) Under Lock & Key be released from impound and distributed to each subscriber, 2) that packages from MIM Distributors be handled as ?Admissible Reading Material? and not ?Routine Mail? and 3) that XXX YYY be allowed to read and study without harassment or undo restrictions. Please notify MIM Distributors at the address above of your decisions.

Sincerely,

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

18 January 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

In December, 2009 the mail room at Florida State Prison (FSP) began returning mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to request a review of these decisions and to re-establish contact with prisoners at FSP.

Mailroom personnel P. Goodman has signed off on a number of ?Unauthorized Mail Return Receipts? for mail sent to Mr. XXX YYY. Two packages of reading material were returned for the reasons that an ?excess of 15 pages? was enclosed. As a known distributor, any publications sent from MIM Distributors should be processed as ?Admissible Reading Material? in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 33-501.401and not as ?Routine Mail.? ?Admissible Reading Material? does not have a page limit. Many small run publications are printed on plain white paper, but are clearly not letters due to their size and content.

In a third return receipt from P. Goodman they claim that the letter somehow promotes violence or disruption because ?it about gangs.? A portion of the letter discusses the Crips in a historical context. It does not discuss or promote acts of violence or the breaking of any laws or rules. The court?s decision in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 is clear that there must be a substantiated threat, and that censorship cannot be based on political or historical discussions.

Earlier in the same month, Issue 11 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key sent to a number of prisoners was impounded for review. This was done correctly applying Rule 33-501.401, yet on the notices none of the criteria set forth in Section (3) of the rule were specified to have been violated. The notice did list page numbers and descriptions of the content including, ?About Movements And gangs?, ?About (KKK)? and ?About Gangs?. Each description is factually correct, so the question is do these items violate any of the criteria laid out? As part of a prisoners? 1st Amendment rights protected under established case law, he may read, correspond with and participate in political organizations. Saying the word ?KKK? or ?gang? is not a threat to anyone.

I am requesting that 1) Under Lock & Key be released from impound and distributed to each subscriber, 2) that packages from MIM Distributors be handled as ?Admissible Reading Material? and not ?Routine Mail? and 3) that XXX YYY be allowed to read and study without harassment or undo restrictions. Please notify MIM Distributors at the address above of your decisions.

Sincerely,

Requested explanation for why rejected.

Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259

August 31, 2009

Publication Review Officer,

This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z on August 6, 2009.

The reasons this publication were denied are listed as threatening the good order of the institution, making security threat group references, and depicting violence. This is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009). It was censored because it "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.

Additionally, there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence." Unless you are going to ban the New York Times and all other newspapers from Menard Correctional Center, we don't think this is a sufficient example that ULK threatens rehabilitation by depicting violence. Similarly, newspapers frequently report on the activity of groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups."

Mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially becuase we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.

We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259

August 31, 2009

Publication Review Officer,

This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z on August 6, 2009.

The reasons this publication were denied are listed as threatening the good order of the institution, making security threat group references, and depicting violence. This is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009). It was censored because it "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.

Additionally, there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence." Unless you are going to ban the New York Times and all other newspapers from Menard Correctional Center, we don't think this is a sufficient example that ULK threatens rehabilitation by depicting violence. Similarly, newspapers frequently report on the activity of groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups."

Mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially becuase we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.

We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)