Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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

21 February 2010

Dear Publication Review Officer,

This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE at Menard Correctional Center. The decision to censor this publication was made by L. Shemonic on 15 December 2009.

The reasons this publication was denied are listed as "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption or it facilitates organizational activity without approval of the Chief Administrative Officer"; "be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health"; and "denied per intel for STG content."

This censorship of Under Lock & Key has been going on for many months, and every time someone from our legal team writes in to dispute it, the decision is overturned on further investigation. We see this as an issue of inadequate training of the mailroom staff at Menard Correctional Center, and we believe it is in everyone's best interest if they were retrained to accurately determine whether Under Lock & Key violates Menard policies. To date, the censorship of Under Lock & Key has not stood up to the Publication Review Committee.

Within the pages of every issue of Under Lock & Key is a box titled "What is MIM(Prisons)?" In issue 11, it is on page 7. This box contains the main principles of the organization that puts Under Lock & Key together, MIM(Prisons) and in it says "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." If one took a closer look at the articles within the pages of Under Lock & Key, one could tell that this theme runs throughout the whole newsletter. We disagree that a newsletter when an explicit position against violence and criminal activity could be in violation of the previously mentioned reasons issue 11 was censored.

This censorship is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009) and issue 9 (July 2009). They were both censored because they "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer on both accounts. 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.

In our last letter to Menard Publication Review Committee on 31 August 2009 regarding the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 9, we argued that there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence" or involve groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups." We went on to argue that 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 because we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.

In conclusion, we request (1) an appeal of this decision made by L. Shemonic by the Publication Review Committee. We also request (2) that the mailroom staff at Menard Correctional Center be retrained to accurately and objectively determine the appropriate status of any publication being mailed to someone held at Menard, especially as it relates to potentially controversial literature such as Under Lock & Key. We request that (3) AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE be allowed to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key issue 11 that are being held by mailroom staff, and that (4) any prisoners held at Menard who choose to communicate with MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) be able to do so without illegal denials and excessive delays in mail delivery.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Donald Gaetz, Warden
Affected parties

Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office
Attn: Caddo Correctional Center Mailroom Manager
505 Travis Street 7th Floor
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

15 February 2010

Dear Mailroom Manager,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009) from MIM Distributors to XXX at Caddo Correctional Center. The reason given for this censorship is that "Inmate-to-inmate incoming and outgoing mail is unacceptable for this facility." However, we would like to challenge that Under Lock & Key is not inmate-to-inmate correspondence, and appeal this decision.

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to free speech that protects their ability to write for newspapers. Prisoners' First Amendment rights also protect them so that they are allowed to receive newspapers. Within the pages of Under Lock & Key, prisoners have written news articles. This is not the same as personal letters between prisoners, and is protected by the First Amendment.

We request to (1) appeal the decision made by Caddo Correctional Center mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as rejected. We also ask that (2) Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009) be deliverable to XXX.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

. . .
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