Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

#4 Mail advocating or promoting violence, group disruption, or insurrection

August 18, 2018

Missouri Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
2927 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
MIM Theory: United Front – 2001 - ? 14

To Whom It May Concern:

We have been notified of censorship by the Missouri Department of Corrections of MIM Theory: United Front (hereinafter, “publication”) as referenced above. We are the publishers of the publication.

As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key and MIM Theory. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012).

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

We demand the Missouri Department of Corrections provide notice as to the detailed reasons for such censorship with specific references to the material found to be objectionable. We reserve our right to appeal any censorship upon receipt of said amended notice.

The Censorship Notification merely states the publication “promotes, [i]ncites or advocates disorder or the violation of state or federal law.” The alleged reason for censorship is broad as the term “advocates disorder” is clearly a separate and unique term from “violation of state or federal law.” While each can occur in unison, they may also be mutually exclusive. The Notification fails to provide such information. The Notification also fails to provide specific references to the alleged offending material. MIM(P) without such information is not given reasonable notice of the reason for censorship and is denied the opportunity to make an informed appeal.

It is clear prison authorities “officials can withhold only literature specifically advocating violence.” See Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 814 F.2d 1252, 1257 (8th Cir. 1987). Federal courts have found that the advocacy of violence must be clear and not part of commentary or opinion which does not direct such activities. See
Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F. Supp. 2d 964, 973 (W.D. Wis. 2008).

Please note we are requesting a copy of any and all records relating to all issues of any publication produced or distributed by MIM(P) which has censored by the Missouri Department of Corrections, to include date of censorship, issue identifying information, and reason for censorship.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide specific notice, we have reviewed the publication and it does not meet the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and the publication be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

Please take notice that failure to sufficiently identify the alleged objectionable material and specific references to its location in the publication, as required by long standing and valid case law, will subject the Missouri Department of Corrections to potential legal actions to enforce our rights.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

MIM Publishers