Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

see 3/8 documentation

see 3/11 documentation

Warden Stanley Williams
Georgia State Prison
300 1st Avenue South
Reidsville, GA 30453

March 9, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of publication Under Lock & Key No. 42 (January/February 2014) to several prisoners held at Georgia State Prison

Dear Warden Williams,

On January 30, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed the above named newsletter via USPS Presorted Standard mail to several prisoners held at Georgia State Prison (GSP). The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with “Return to Sender... Not Approved” stamped on the publication. The publications were returned unopened, and with no other information as to why they were censored. I have enclosed a copy for your reference.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, MIM Distributors was notified of the reason for the censorship decision or offered a chance to appeal. Prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

With this letter, I would like to request:
1) to be informed why the above named publication was censored at GSP;
2) to appeal the decision to censor this publication; and
3) that in the future GSP mailroom staff follow the law in assessing whether a publication should be censored, and in notifying the sender and intended recipient of the reason for such censorship, also allowing a chance to appeal.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Administrator: Stephen D'Ilio
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

February 10, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of mail to xxx at New Jersey State Prison

Dear Administrator D'Ilio,

On January 21, 2014, MIM Distributors mailed a large manila envelope via USPS First Class mail to the above named prisoner held at New Jersey State Prison. The envelope contained two magazines, published and distributed by MIM Distributors. The names of the magazines are:

MIM Theory 1: A White Proletariat?
MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy

The envelope and magazines were returned to MIM Distributors with ?Not Authorized? and ?Return to Sender? stamped on the envelope. The envelope was returned unopened, indicating that the mailroom staff at New Jersey State Prison did not open the envelope to inspect its contents. Additionally, no notification as to why this mail was censored from Mr. xxx was ever sent to MIM Distributors.

With this letter I have enclosed a copy of the invoice and a photocopy of the envelope in question.

Dating back to 2012, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at New Jersey State Prisoin. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), the newspaper MIM Notes, as well as simple letters. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

The attached letter is being returned to you per NYS Directive #4422, due to the following:
unapproved by media review

The attached letter is being returned to you per NYS Directive #4422, due to the following:
unapproved by media review

The attached letter is being returned to you per NYS Directive #4422, due to the following:
unapproved by media review

I have received your envelope, thank you, however the enclosed material was taken by Media Review and denied me due to "inciteful material throughoug." This newsletter has never been an issue until now, and I believe the move is more retaliatory and harassing than being of any actual concern. Either way, I have appealed the decision to Central Office. They ask that the senders send an appeal letter as well, if possible.

I myself have tried to explain the newsletter via a quasi-political/philosophical bent, promoting re-education of the offender and the individual. Promoting unity, peace and communism and specifically denouncing chaos, violence, etc.