Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

The policy on bartering and trading applies only on an inmate-to-inmate basis and makes no mention about transactions with outside organizations. In addition, just because the organization offered the option of trading work for study, does not mean that the inmate will exercise that option, much less choose to participate in the course offered.

Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401: "Wardens may not reject a publication ' solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, sexual or... unpopular or repugnant.'"

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

28 May 2013

To Ms. Bostic,

This letter is to request a review of the decision to censor the March/April issue of Under Lock & Key, No. 31. The notification sent from Fay Lassiter justified this censorship with the reason ?A Code.? It seems she is claiming that the newsletter promotes criminal activity or breaking the law. Every issue of Under Lock & Key states on page 2, ?We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.? Unless you can find content contradicting this statement, I would argue that there is no justification for censoring this issue of Under Lock & Key.

We recently issued a records request from your office to demonstrate whether there is an independent review process and to justify the consistent decisions to uphold the censorship of our mail. We are still awaiting your response to this request issued over 2 months ago.


Thank you,

March 16, 2013
Communications Office
North Carolina Department of Public Safety
4201 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4201

RECORDS REQUEST

Dear Records Request Officer:

Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of all records of independent reviews of disapproved mail from MIM(Prisons)/MIM Distributors to prisoners held by the state of North Carolina from January 1, 2011 to the present time, including any documents related to the decisions made in each case.

These documents can be sent to me at the street address above. If there are copying fees you can also just email the documents to mimprisons@lavabit.com, or notify me of the cost via email.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services, NCDPS
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

17 March 2013

RE: review censorship

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to the enclosed Letter to Publisher sent to MIM Distributors by Ms. Fay Lassiter. Over the last two years I've been writing to Lassiter and Ms. Cynthia Bostic to request, among other things, that they provide reasons for censoring mail from MIM Distributors. This recent letter from Lassiter states the reason as being, "A Code." As I've stated before, it is hard for us to address these issues when such meaningless explanations are put forth.

The letter does cite page 4 of Under Lock & Key No. 30. Based on the page numbers cited in the last couple notices we have received from your department it seems that pages containing the political ideology of MIM(Prisons) are being targeted for censorship. I would like to remind you of the law as established in Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401:

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant'"

I am requesting a review of the enclosed censorship decision. As I do so, I hope this legal standard will be kept in mind. And I, once again, request that you provide citation of how the newsletter in question violates the safety and security of the institution if you do uphold Ms. Lassiter's judgement.


Thank you,