Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.

It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]

Additional information: Mass mailing from MIM DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.

The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.

Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit

ISU has once again banned/disallowed MIM Distributors with the bogus claim that it has plans to "strike"; coded messages; promotes gang activities; has inmate-to-inmate correspondence; & third party mail. This is plainly an untrue statement of the facts. PBSP is only attempting to exclude ALL material from MIM regardless of the material in it, which it cannot do. See Williams v. Brimeyer 116 F.3d 351 (1997). Prison officials cannot censor mail just because it makes rule [sic] comments about the prison or prison staff (see Bressman v. Farrier, 825 F.Supp 231 (1993)). Further I have the right, as all prisoners do, to express our political beliefs and cannot be punished because of them (see Sczerbaty v. Oswald 341 F. Supp 571 (1972)). A news publication, which MIM is, IS allowed to report the news. That means prison news as well. I have already addressed this issue on prior disapproved mail of MIM yet PBSP is still unjustly banning MIM. This needs to stop.

Michael Bowersox, Warden
South Central Correctional Center
255 W. Hwy 32
Licking, Mo. 65542



15 December 2008

Warden Bowersox,

This letter is regarding censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (123455) that we were just made aware of. No notification was ever sent to us by the mailroom regarding this censorship, nor were the materials returned to us.

The reason given for censorship was: ?promotes, violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law.? The pages cited in MIM Theory for censorship include articles on sex, history and MIM?s operational guidelines. None of these articles even deal with questions of violence or violating the law.

If you read page Under Lock & Key, you will see the box in every issue that states, ?Our current battles in the united states are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.? So in fact, MIM literature is exactly the opposite of what is being claimed.

Therefore, I am requesting that the decision be reviewed and the literature be given to Mr. XXXXXX.

Thank you for your time,

Warden
USP Lee
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 900
Jonesville, VA 24263

21 November 2011

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding two issues of the newsletter Under Lock & Key that were denied to a prisoner held at USP Lee County, Mr. XXX #XXX. We were recently informed by Mr. XXX that he neither received the issues, nor received notification that they were being denied. It is United States law that the sender and prisoner must be notified if an item of mail is being censored by prison administrators or staff (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In spite of this precedent, MIM Distributors was also not notified of this censorship.

Here is a list of the issues of Under Lock & Key which were denied to Mr. XXX, without notification as described above:

Issue 19 (March 2011)
Issue 21 (July/August 2011)

We recently sent Mr. XXX issues 22 (September/October 2011) and 23 (November/December 2011) and have not received notification of denial, or confirmation that Mr. XXX has received them.

Please look into this issue, as this censorship is obviously illegal. We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties