MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Contains articles and information on drugs in prisons and the cost comparison of inside and outside of prison as well as movement of drugsThis was overturned
Washington Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
File No. SAL-1217-126
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to Mr. X. The notice states that ”8. Contains articles and information on drugs in prisons and the cost comparison of inside and outside of prison as well as movement of drugs.” There, however, is no reference to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
We require the decision to censor issue 59 be vacated and delivered to Mr. X.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
03/01/2018
Corrections Specialist notifies us that publication review committee overturned censorship Download Documentation
Additional information from ULK59 notice of rejection
Show Text
The following details the specific written or pictorial matter that is believed to be inadmissible:
Cover Page: Poisoning the Well
Page 4: COs$ of Drug$
page 7: Slangin' in the prison movement
Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners
under Lock and Key Nov/Dec 2017 No 59
02/12/2018
MIM(Prisons) protested censorship
Show Text
February 12, 2018
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above referenced prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on the cover page “Poisoning the Well,” page 4 “Cos$ of Drug$” [sic] , page 7 “Slangin’ in prison movement,” and “Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners.”
Each of these referenced articles, when read in their entirety and in context, advocate for the removal of drugs from prisons. A position one would believe prison authorities would espouse. As an example, drugs are referred to as “parasitic” and being used for “manipulation.” Poisoning the Well, p. 2. The Co$t of Drug$ (p. 4) makes reference, in a negative manner, to the black-market economy, which in turn negatively affect prisoners. The commentary clearly stands for the elimination of drugs within the prison system. Slangin’ in the prison movement?, p.7. The Corizon article takes issue with the fact that non-drug interventions are not provided in treating pain, a clear indication that even prescribed drugs should be reduced within the prison system. Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners, p. 14. Each of these articles provides no information on how to sell or obtain drugs in a prison. In fact, each clearly states that drugs are a negative influence on prisoners and those involved in the prison drug trade. It is clear this is not in line with FDOC beliefs and values, as you have chosen to censor this material as being against the interests of the institutional population. As such, you must be condoning a belief that drugs in prison are in fact acceptable and provide for the security and good order of the institution.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
The cited references do not provide adequate notice as to the objectionable content. Unless the objectionable content is that drugs are acceptable in prisons.
The censorship of ULK, based on the reasons set forth in the Notice, constitute a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. These reasons are clearly not applicable under any reasoned interpretation of the Code and cannot have been made in a good faith reliance on any such application.
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above referenced prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on “stamp program advertisement.” The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
The “stamp program” referenced includes the following language in its entirety on page 2 of ULK:
“If you can afford to send donations, and if your facility rules allow, sending us stamps is the best way to donate.”
F.A.C. 33-501.401 (l) states (emphasis added):
(l) It contains an advertisement promoting any of the following where the advertisement is the focus of, rather than being incidental to, the publication or the advertising is prominent or prevalent throughout the publication.
1. Three-way calling services;
2. Pen pal services;
3. The purchase of products or services with postage stamps; or
4. Conducting a business or profession while incarcerated.
(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.
It is clear the F.A.C. rule cited only applies to the purchase of goods and services. The language in ULK on page 2 clearly requests a “donation”, not a purchase of any product and only seeks such a donation if such donation is allowed by facility rules.
Further, the F.A.C. cited requires the advertisement to be the focus of the publication and/or prominent or prevalent throughout the publication. The request for donation, if facility rules allow, is the total of twenty-two (22) words in 24 pages of writing consisting of approximately 32,750 words. Clearly it is neither the focus of nor prevalent. It also is not a prominent feature of the publication as it is on page 2 in normal font within the body of a paragraph.
It is clear the censorship based on a “stamp program” is arbitrary and capricious. It is also a clear misapplication of the Florida Administrative Code on its face.
There is also no reference to any content which would “otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.” The publication contains no such content.
The censorship of ULK, based on the reasons set forth in the Notice, constitute a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. These reasons are clearly not applicable under any reasoned interpretation of the Code and cannot have been made in a good faith reliance on any such application.
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.
additional information from impoundment notification
Show Text
Cover page: Poisoning the Well
Page 4: Cos$ of Drug$
Page 7: Slangin' in the prison movement
Corizon Runnin gDrugs to Control AZ Prisoners
Under Lock and Key Nov/Dec 2017 No 59
02/20/2018
MIM(Prisons) protested censorship
Show Text
February 12, 2018
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above referenced prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on the cover page “Poisoning the Well,” page 4 “Cos$ of Drug$” [sic] , page 7 “Slangin’ in prison movement,” and “Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners.”
Each of these referenced articles, when read in their entirety and in context, advocate for the removal of drugs from prisons. A position one would believe prison authorities would espouse. As an example, drugs are referred to as “parasitic” and being used for “manipulation.” Poisoning the Well, p. 2. The Co$t of Drug$ (p. 4) makes reference, in a negative manner, to the black-market economy, which in turn negatively affect prisoners. The commentary clearly stands for the elimination of drugs within the prison system. Slangin’ in the prison movement? p.7. The Corizon article takes issue with the fact that non-drug interventions are not provided in treating pain, a clear indication that even prescribed drugs should be reduced within the prison system. Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners, p. 14. Each of these articles provides no information on how to sell or obtain drugs in a prison. In fact, each clearly states that drugs are a negative influence on prisoners and those involved in the prison drug trade. It is clear this is not in line with FDOC beliefs and values, as you have chosen to censor this material as being against the interests of the institutional population. As such, you must be condoning a belief that drugs in prison are in fact acceptable and provide for the security and good order of the institution.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
The cited references do not provide adequate notice as to the objectionable content. Unless the objectionable content is that drugs are acceptable in prisons.
The censorship of ULK, based on the reasons set forth in the Notice, constitute a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. These reasons are clearly not applicable under any reasoned interpretation of the Code and cannot have been made in a good faith reliance on any such application.
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
Who did you talk to? Lieutenant Ratcliff
When? Today
What was their response? Write it up
What action was taken? I'm writing it up
This grievance is being filed on October 17, 2017 from [xxx] cell. I'm filing discrimination against the staff in the mailroom for denying my revolutionary newsletters from MIM Prison. The movement is about united front for peace in prison between inmates. The Administration on the Darrington Unit is totally against this movement because we tell inmates about coming together before the material things in prison that keep us divided. My revolutionary newsletter is no more of a security threat than this crooked Administration that allows these Ad Seg individuals to have cell phones and drugs in Ad Seg.
Action requested: I would like my incoming mail and outgoing mail to be left alone.
10/18/2017
Admin screens out grievance as "not grievable" and "beyond the control of the agency to correct"
Show Text
Returned because: 8. The issue presented is not grievable.
Attached instructions on how to write and submit grievances/
6. You may not grieve:
* Any matter beyond the control of the agency to correct.
01/10/2018
Director's Review Committee upholds denial
Show Text
The Director's Review Committee (DRC) has rendered a decision regarding your applea of the Unit rejection of Another offender publication inside said offenders mail received in contradiction with BP-03.91, Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules.
The return address indicates that the rejected item(s) was/were mailed to you from:
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 9440 [sic]
It is the decision of the DRC to uphold the Unit rejection of the above mentioned item(s). You will have 60 days from the above date to make disposition of the denied item unless security mandates there be no disposition.
02/01/2018
MIM(Prisons) appeals prison denial of grievance
Show Text
February 1, 2018
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutions Division
Director’s Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Unknown Publication
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Director’s Review Committee Decision Form dated January 10, 2018 concerning the decision to uphold censorship of one of our publications (hereinafter, “Form”), the publication in question is unknown, as you have not listed the publication information on the Form. The Form was also provided to XX the same date. We are the distributors listed on the form. We would note that we have never been provided notice of the censorship related to the Form as required by federal case law.
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 [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
As such, we object to the notice of censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. You must provide additional information which clearly states the publication in question and the objectionable material within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to reply will result in the appropriate legal action including but not limited to litigation of our rights in the proper judicial forum.
Your failure to provide notice of censorship as well as the identification of the publication in question is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as publishers.
contains articles and information on drugs in prisons and teh cost comparison of inside and outside of prison as well as movement of drugsThis was overturned
Washington Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
File No. SAL-1217-127
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to Mr. X. The notice states that ”8. Contains articles and information on drugs in prisons and the cost comparison of inside and
outside of prison as well as movement of drugs.” There, however, is no reference to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
We require the decision to censor issue 59 be vacated and delivered to Mr. X.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
01/31/2018
WA DOC responds to censorship appeal
Show Text
To whom it may concern:
I'm in receipt of your two correspondences appealing the rejection of the above two notices for inmates XXX and YYY dated January 21, 2018.
Per Washington State DOC policy 450.100 all publications rejected by any DOC correctional facility will be reviewed by the Publication Review Committee at DOC Headquarters. Mail Rejection Notice number 18346 was reviewed on January 8, 2018 and was overturned by the committee. The publicaiton issue has since been forwarded to each offender. A copy of the final decision notice should be forthcoming to you from Stafford Creek Correctional Center (SCCC).
prisoner notified us: "Incoming newsletter containing indepth information on the drug problems and values of drugs within the correctional setting which is a security issue"This was overturned
Washington Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
File No. 18346
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. XX for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The letter indicates Issue 59 was rejected for “[i]ncoming newsletter containing indepth information on the drug problems and values of drugs within the correctional setting which is a security issue.” Currently, MIM(P) has received no notice of censorship as is required by Washington Administrative Rules and federal case law.
The limited information provided does not show a reasonably objectionable or rational basis for rejection of the publication. The information does not show any means to breach security of the institution or introduce contraband.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, failure to provide notice of this censorship does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and notice with a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
We require the decision to censor issue 59 be vacated and delivered to Mr. XX.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
01/31/2018
WA DOC responds to censor appeal
Show Text
To whom it may concern:
I'm in receipt of your two correspondences appealing the rejection of the above two notices for inmates XXX and YYY dated January 21, 2018.
Per Washington State DOC policy 450.100 all publications rejected by any DOC correctional facility will be reviewed by the Publication Review Committee at DOC Headquarters. Mail Rejection Notice number 18346 was reviewed on January 8, 2018 and was overturned by the committee. The publicaiton issue has since been forwarded to each offender. A copy of the final decision notice should be forthcoming to you from Stafford Creek Correctional Center (SCCC).
publisher notification: page 5, front cover: materia that emphasizes depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or feeral laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure
Virginia Department of Corrections
Deputy Director, Division of Operations
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 55
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 8, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). We received the Notice on August 14, 2017 and have fifteen (15) days from that date to submit this appeal. See VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (F)(2). This appeal is timely.
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (H)(D&F). The Notice cited to the cover and page five (5) of ULK. However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2. 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).
As such, we object to the notice of censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly states the objectionable material within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to vagueness, we will address the two portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.
Subsection (D) references “[m]aterial, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure Note: This criterion shall not be used to exclude publications that describe such acts in the context of a story or moral teaching unless the description of such acts is the primary purpose of the publication. No publication generally recognized as having artistic or literary value should be excluded under this criterion...” A careful review of ULK shows that there is no content which meets this criterion. The articles on the cover and page 5, fall within the noted exception of subsection (D) as storytelling and moral teaching and do not promote violence or insurrection. This is clear on the face of the referenced pages of the publication.
Subsection (F) references “[m]aterial that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.” Again, a careful review of the referenced sections of ULK shows there are no such references.
We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 55 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.
In the alternative, we require a more definitive statement as to the specific sections of ULK which are alleged to violate Virginia Department of Corrections policy.
You may reply to the address listed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.
The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
01/16/2018
Prison responded to MIM(prisons) protest letter with specific examples Download Documentation
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.
The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.
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 [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
