Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Benjamin A. Wright, Publication Review Committee
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

21 April 2008

Mr. Wright,

I am responding to your letter dated March 31, 2008 regarding the decision to ban Issue #1 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key. As the letter was postmarked April 9, 2008 I believe I am writing within the 15 day period required to request a review of this decision.

The basis for my request for a review is the U.S. Supreme Court decision of THORNBURGH v. ABBOTT, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). The reason that you cite from Operating Procedure #803.2 is taken directly from THORNBURGH, which reads:

Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations generally permit prisoners to receive publications from the "outside," but authorize wardens, pursuant to specified criteria, to reject an incoming publication if it is found "to be detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity."

You cite the latter part of this sentence but ignore what it refers to as ?specified criteria,? which the case cites as being established in TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). TURNER reiterates the need to establish a ?valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate government interest? and that ?the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.? Citing the pages of the newsletter that provide a well-documented factual account of abuses that took place at Red Onion State Prison indicates a clear bias in determining the linkage of the material to a presumed threat to security. In fact, this is a textbook example of what the First Amendment exists for, to prevent the government from restricting the press to content that serves the interest of the government itself.

We hope that upon review you can act to rectify this blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution by the VADOC Publication Review Committee.

Sincerely,

pages 10 & 11 were the Under Lock & Key sections of MIM Notes containing letters from prisoners about what's going on behind bars.

On May 5th i was notified of the reversal, yet i didn't receive the "klean" issue of MT14 until May 8th, after i wrote to the Deputy Warden of Programs that the MT14 was not sent with the reversal notice per procedure.

Central Office Media Review Committee
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Bldg. 2, Rm 112
State Office Campus
1220 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12226

7 May 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

In March, Mr. XXXXXX E.Nkosithani XXXXXX (XXXXXX) notified MIM Distributors that a magazine (MIM Theory 14: United Front) mailed to him had been censored for the reason ?darkened ink splotches from bottom to top on pp. 124&125 and 108&109.? The magazine was not returned, and no notification was sent by the Department of Corrections to MIM Distributors. I have not been able to find anything in Directive 4572 that states that publications can be censored for printing errors within the publication.

On April 6, MIM Distributors sent another copy of the magazine to Mr. Nkosithani that did not appear to have any printing errors in it. This time Mr. Nkosithani notified MIM Distributors that the same magazine had been censored for ?16 pages? that were marked as ?incites violence, et cetera, in violation of Dir. 4572?? He has already submitted an appeal addressing the alleged violations point-by-point. We do not have a copy of the violations, as once again MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship by the department. So we will stand by Mr. Nkosithani?s appeal. It does seem that the Media Review Committee is grasping at straws for reasons to censor MIM Theory 14 since printing errors do not seem to pose a threat of any kind, and MIM?s literature has never incited violence as claimed in the most recent instance.

In addition to requesting an appeal to the decision to censor MIM Theory 14, I wish to request a clarification from the department of Title 9 7004.3(b)(1)(i)(ii). Is it not department policy that publishers be notified when and why their publications have been censored? Our recent experience with Upstate Correctional Facility, Bare Hill, Clinton and others show a regular practice of publications not being delivered to prisoners, not being returned to the publisher and no notification being sent to the publisher. If you could clarify the policy so that we know whether to expect this in the future, I would appreciate it.

Thank you for your time,

Oh, MIM! I had my adminstrative review on the mail which was considered 'STG A Call To Action.' The violation was overturned. Apparently the 'Call to Action' was the suggestion that study group participants 'please step up' in their response/participation. The mailroom clerk did not correlate the request with the study group, I guess, even though the paper clearly says 'study group course.' Fortunately, the reviewers were more reasonable and I commend them for that. The Administrative Mail reviews at SRCI are now handled by Ms. Blackletter. I'm also enclosing my appeal of Administrative Review regarding MN #338, which was not overturned. On Under Lock & Key a prisoner calls for comrades to not participate in the snitch program and this is why the paper was violated

Aiight, I'm out.

Media Review Committee
Southport Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Pine City, NY 14871-2000

2 March 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in a response to a notification that we received from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) that a copy of MIM?s newsletter, Under Lock & Key Issue 1, was censored by Southport Correctional Facility mailroom staff because it ?incites disobedience.? We were not notified by staff of this censorship, so we can only respond to the information provided us by Mr. XXXXXX.

I am requesting a review of this decision, which reportedly applied to all pages (1-12) of the newsletter. The basis of my appeal is that it is MIM?s explicit policy to discourage prisoners from breaking any rules or laws. Not only do we promote the use of legal means of dealing with injustices, we have had a significant effect in reducing retaliatory actions among prisoners who are a part of our programs over the last couple decades.

While I could not find any incites to disobedience in the publication in question, I did find the following statement on page 2:
?Note to prisoners and to mailroom staff -- MIM and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the united states). 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.?

Then on page 11 a contributor writes: ?I do agree that those types of behaviors [cursing and spitting] are not only silly but stupid.? The writer goes on to encourage prisoners to use ?the pen & paper? as the only form of dealing with abuses that they face.

In light of these excerpts and a review of the whole content of ULK Issue 1, I hope you will find that the claims made to justify censoring MIM were erroneous. If you disagree, please provide us with an explanation of exactly what content of this publication was deemed unacceptable so that we can work to resolve this matter.

Thank you for your time,

Inspector General
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Bldg. 2, Rm 112
State Office Campus
1220 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12226

16 March 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

We recently received a letter from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX), requesting that we contact you regarding a recent incident of censorship of one of our publications at Southport Correctional Facility. I have enclosed the letter that we originally sent to the Media Review Committee at Southport. Since then, Mr. XXXXXX has written to request an investigation into the fact that Southport?s Media Review Committee Chairperson, P. Sweeney, has not been notifying publishers that their mail is being censored. This letter is to affirm that we never received notice of the February 15, 2008 censorship decision made regarding the November 2007 issue of our publication Under Lock & Key.

As described in the enclosed letter, we are requesting that our communications and affiliations with prisoners in the NYS DOCS be allowed per the rights granted us in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, we request that if there are any further concerns that we are notified of them so that we can work to remedy them immediately, as described in New York Code Title 7 section 720.4(G)(1)(2).

Thank you for your time,

The February 15th, 2008 decision of the Southport Facility Media Review Committee, to reject and censor, Under Lock & Key, November 2007 No. 1, was reversed by the Central Office Media Review Committee on April 2nd, 2008, which was a huge victory in our fight against censorship.

I would like to inform you that since this victory, I have been receiving material from MIM Distributors with no harassment, which is definitely great news!

a New York Prisoner

Randy Greer
Mail Administrator, OR DOC
2575 Center Street NE
Salem, OR 97310

22 February 2008


Dear Mr. Greer,

I?m writing you directly regarding some recent returned mail, as it seems that things have escalated to the point of unsubstantiated censorship again at SRCI. In addition, it appears that the staff there has resorted to harassment of inmates for their (assumed) political beliefs. I would like to request an administrative review on both of these decisions, and an investigation into the harassment.

I?ve enclosed the two recent Mail Violation Notices, both claiming MIM Distributors is an STG. The first states that MIM Distributors is an ?Unauthorized Publisher.? Is there something we can do to notify staff of MIM?s authorized publisher status on a regular basis, like posting a list in the mailroom or something? It seems that I have had to write to you regarding this claim every six months or so.

The second notice states ?STG A Call to Action.? Is staff member Moorebe claiming that MIM is a security threat group? As I?ve previously explained, MIM literature expressly discourages our readers from any activity that is illegal, violent or counterproductive in any other way. We do call people to take political action, as any political organization does. Is that now a violation of the department?s policies?

I look forward to your response to this matter, and thank you for taking your time to investigate these matters for us.


Sincerely,

Deputy Director J. Jabe
Division of Operations
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

15 December 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

Shortly after my last letter I received further documentation of censorship of MIM?s mail at Red Onion State Prison from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). As of today, we have still not received a response to our appeal made in late November.

Two of the documents were regarding grievances filed by Mr. XXXXXX regarding the censorship of a number of publications including MIM Notes and MIM Theory. The final decision made by yourself upheld the censorship for Operating Procedure 803.2 #7, 13 and 14. In my previous letter I addressed these claims in relation to MIM literature. These new documents merely recite these rules, without providing any substantiating evidence. As Mr. XXXXXX points out, it is not legal to block our mail for reasons of political disagreements or discrimination against Black or other minority group organizations. Therefore, I am reiterating our request for specific citations of the material that is alleged to have violated these procedures.

The third document was in reference to the most recent incident of censorship of a letter sent from MIM to Mr. XXXXXX in October. The memo from Major K. Chris claims that MIM study group material violated 803.2 #7, 13, 14 and 15. The new procedure (15) refers to publications in a language other than English or written in code. The study group material was a set of questions on the topic of a philosophy text regarding materialism and idealism. This was also sent with a copy of the letter of inquiry I had sent to your office that I was carbon copying to Mr. XXXXXX. I am at a total loss as to which portions of these materials were deemed to violate any of the rules cited.

Please pass our mail along to Mr. XXXXXX or provide us with specific citations of how each item violates each operating procedure cited.

Sincerely,

W.D. Jennings, Ph.D., Management Lead Analyst
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

16 March 2008

Mr. Jennings,

In my February 10 letter to you I had inquired about an incident in which a letter to a prisoner at Red Onion State Prison from MIM Distributors was described as having ?No Approval.? I pointed out that Operating Procedure 803.2 only applies to publications, and as defined in the rule letters are not included.

In your February 27th letter to MIM Distributors regarding a different letter to a different prisoner, you describe the letter as a ?magazine,? despite the fact that the letter does not fit the description of a magazine or publication given in 803.2. In your attempt to inappropriately apply the rules you have exposed your own unwillingness to allow prisoners to participate in programs aimed at education and personal reform. Is inviting a prisoner to participate in a study group ?detrimental to security? and ?the rehabilitation of inmates??

We are officially requesting an independent review of this decision to censor our mail. Also, could you please let us know who is responsible for conducting the independent review? We are quite confident that an independent review of the decision would show that not only are the rules being applied incorrectly, but that the materials in question do not pose a threat to the rehabilitation of inmates, rather they represent an important program to promote rehabilitation. Since your letter was postmarked March 6, 2008, we should still be well within the 15 calendar day requirement for our request.

Sincerely,

W.D. Jennings, Management Lead Analyst
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

21 April 2008

Mr. Jennings,

In your letter dated April 8, replying to my March 16 request for an administrative review, you failed to address any of my concerns once again. Not only are you treating a document sent to a prisoner as a magazine, but you fail to provide any response regarding the substance of you claims that the material violates any rules or posses any threats. Your letter contains no content but a restating of the rules. As I established with you late last year, we are now fully briefed on the rules and regulations as spelled out in Operating Procedure #803.2. Yet the department has failed to demonstrate how any of the materials sent by MIM Distributors violate these rules.

The administrative review process was established in response to the standards of TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) which allow leeway to prison administrators so as to avoid court decisions for every instance of censorship. By failing to provide a means of dealing with these problems administratively you are preventing the decision from being effective in protecting the rights of the public to communicate with prisoners.

In the most recent censorship notice that MIM Distributors has received from Mr. Benjamin Wright (see enclosed), the VADOC decided to ban a publication for an article that is critical of the department itself. This conflict of interest is also a violation of federal law.

Finally, in violation of Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir. 1999), the VADOC has systematically blocked and delayed mail to prisoners within Red Onion State Prison. One recent report from a prisoner documents letters that MIM Legal Department cc?ed him regarding my appeals to your office were delayed by 1 to 2 months.

We intend to pursue these matters until the department can reasonably claim to be following the law in relation to mail sent by MIM Distributors and the communications of prisoners with the outside world.

Sincerely,

Media Review Committee
Southport Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Pine City, NY 14871-2000

April 2, 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

Our office has been notified by Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) that he has been denied a copy of Party Bulletin Issue 6 published and distributed by the New Afrikan Maoist Party (NAMP) for the reason: “inciting disobedience.” We have not received notification of this censorship ourselves, but it is our understanding that it is required that your committee notify the party that is being censored that their mail was not delivered and why. We are requesting such notification so that we can deal with this matter effectively.

Though we were not notified of this censorship, I hope that this letter can serve as a request for an appeal of the decision. Mr. XXXXXX reported that pages 1-15 (the whole publication) were rejected for the given reason. Pages 4-7 contain nothing but definitions of words. Pages 8-14 contain a fictional story on the theme of economics. It seems hard to believe that you could honestly propose that such content is “inciting disobedience.”

The one portion of the newsletter that encourages prisoners to act is the call to New York prisoners, on page 15, to participate in an ongoing lawsuit that we are currently involved in against the NYS DOCS. It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest, and illegal for DOCS staff to be hindering our efforts to gather statements from our supporters regarding the repression that they are facing for receiving and possessing literature from NAMP. If your committee decides to uphold the decision to censor this material we do plan to add this incident as evidence of the department’s violation of its own rules in regards to its treatment of NAMP and particularly of prisoners who are supporters of NAMP.

We hope that upon reconsideration you will find that there is no legitimate reason to censor Party Bulletin Issue 6 and other literature that we send to prisoners at Southport.

Sincerely,

#12 mail that is deemed to be a threat to legitimate penological objectives
#17 markings that are discriminatory in a racial, ethnic, religious or sexual manner and, or contain markings of gang symbols of other unauthorized groups
#26 mail unauthorized by DOC 450.100 mail for offenders

W.D. Jennings, Ph.D., Management Lead Analyst
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

10 February 2008

Mr. Jennings,

I am writing you again regarding a new incident that just came across my desk. A letter that was sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) regarding the censorship problems MIM has been having at Red Onion State Prison was returned with the reason ?No Approval? (see enclosed memo).

After re-reviewing Operating Procedure 803.2, which you had previously sent me, there is no indication that you need to get prior approval to send a letter to someone at Red Onion. In fact, the whole operating procedure is on the subject of ?Incoming Publications,? which are defined as ?Any written communication such as newspapers, magazines, newsletters or other periodicals, books, brochures, catalogs, or pamphlets that can be subscribed to or ordered from a legitimate mail order vendor.? Clearly, this does not include letters. Is there a separate operating procedure I should be referring to in this matter? And if letters need to be approved, how would we go about doing that? Must we write to you directly before sending each letter to someone at Red Onion?

Finally, also note that Mr. XXXXXX received written approval to receive a free subscription to MIM?s newsletters on the same day that this letter was censored (see enclosed Personal Property Request Form). So if this letter is being treated as a publication by Major K. Chris, as it appears to be, then his claim of ?no approval? is unfounded.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide in this matter,