MIM Legal News: New York Prisoner gets books

A New York Prisoner recently sent us documentation of a 
small victory in which s/he was able to receive three books 
that were held by media review for political content. As is 
required by law, the prisoner received disposition notices 
for each book describing why it had been censored. The 
reasons given for rejecting passages in the books were 
mostly "incites to anarchy" and "inciting based on race." 
(That's rich -- as prisoners and regular readers of MIM 
Notes know, guards are constantly "inciting on the basis of 
race" in order to set prisoners against each other.) The 
prisoner than chose to appeal to the Central Office of Media 
Review Committee, which is an option on the disposition 
notices in New York State. At first his letter of appeal was 
ignored. The prisoner then sent a more extensive follow up 
letter including the following excerpts: "I strongly believe 
that the denial of these political publications, which don't 
advocate overthrowing prisons or rioting in prisons or 
violence in prisons should not have been denied to me. In 
the case 'Laaman v. Hancock, 351F. Supp. 1265 (1972 D.C. 
N.H.), the court held that text presenting [a] collection of 
writings from Karl Marx on armed struggle for liberation and 
for socialism, drawing heavily on world history and economic 
theory as they relate to the socialist and revolutionary 
movements, would not endanger prison security or prison 
discipline and should be made available. "Commissioner X, 
can you please look into this matter and find out what 
happened to the three political publications, why my appeal 
wasn't heard or responded to? I will appreciate your 
investigation in this mysterious matter and hope we can 
resolve this matter here because the first amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution as well as many case law on the books 
empowered prisoners with the rights to hold whatever 
political beliefs they so choose to embrace, or whatever 
political parties, groups or political organizations in 
society that they may chose to pledge their commitment in. 
The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, as 
well as prisoners to practice whatever political beliefs or 
philosophies that one so desires to practice. See Stovall v. 
Bennett, 471 F. Supp. 1286 (1979 D.C. Ala). Thank you for 
your time and services." Subsequently, the decisions to 
censor all three books were reversed. We print portions of 
the prisoner's letter here as an example to others in 
similar situations. S/he cites a couple of cases that could 
prove useful in fighting censorship battles in all prisons. 
Well-placed sarcasm aside, there's a reason politicized 
prisoners' correspondence "mysteriously" disappears: To 
prevent the development of radical politics and drain 
prisoners' will to protect their own rights. We fight and 
win censorship battles to keep this from happening.