Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

I am objecting to staff Kristie B. Stenback's decision to reject incoming publication material from Under Lock & Key (ULK). Her statements ULK has been on the Master List of Disapproved Publications (MLDP) for the past/previous 12 months and there are no appeal rights to this decision.

Dear Publication Review Committee,

The rejecting of the ULK newsletter is a form of retaliation and has been one form (my mail) staff has used to retaliate against me.
I can't file a grievance on this serious matter because staff here jester with me filing grievances, demolishing them and/or unjustly rejecting my inmate grievances when I have other complaints before this one.
Miss Kristie B. Stenback is giving misleading information which is also lying that ULK appears on the statewide MLDP and has been for the previous 12 months by the DOP, PRC. I object to this statement on two grounds. Number one, I have been feceiving materials from ULK up until April of 2010. Number two, my last copy of the MLDP is from 6/23/2010 - 6/25/2010 and ULK is not on the list.

Maoist is an internationalist newspaper that is helpful for inmates. They discourage any engaging in violence or illegal acts. Therefor, why is something so peaceful and informative for us prisoners being locked upon as something being negative? I'll appreciate it a lot if you all allow me to receive my newspaper.

. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Mailroom Supervisor
Bertie Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 129
Windsor, NC 27892

1 February 2010

Dear Sir/Madam.

This letter is regarding the censorship of several letters from MIM Distributors to XXX dating from December 2009 to the present. There are three letters in question. One is an introductory letter to the organization MIM(Prisons) that explains how prisoners can obtain free books, fight censorship with us, and MIM(Prisons)' program and ideology. It was mailed on 10 December 2009. The second letter that was censored is a more detailed informational letter about MIM(Prisons), or a frequently asked questions list. It was mailed on 23 December 2009. The third and most interesting letter that is in question was sent on 09 January 2010. This letter was all about how to fight censorship and follow the administrative appeals process to the highest level, by filing grievances.

All of these letters were returned to MIM Distributors with notice of rejection slips inside. We appreciate your mailroom staff's adherence to the law in this regard. However, we are incredibly confused as to how these letters could be rejected. One of the reasons cited on the notice is that they are all "threat[s] to institutional safety and security." That the censorship information pack could be considered a threat to security is bizarre and unconstitutional. From page 1 of the MIM(Prisons) introductory letter:

"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. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the United States)."

How is it then that this mail could be considered a "threat to institutional safety and security"?

Also noted as a reason for censorship of these letters is that they "violate policy #.0109 (E.1)." We request that you (1) send MIM Distributors a copy of policy #.0109(E.1), (2) investigate why mailroom staff is incorrectly applying the "notice of rejection" to letters being mailed from MIM Distributors, and (3) allow XXX, and any other prisoner at Bertie Correctional Institution who so chooses, to communicate with MIM(Prisons) as allowed by law.

We look forward to your investigation and rectification of this problem. Please write to us at the address below with any questions.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Rick Jackson, Administrator
Lanesboro Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 280
Polkson, NC 28135

August 31, 2009

Administrator Jackson,

This letter is to inquire about mail that has been censored from prisoner X that was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. Mr. X and MIM have been in regular contact for several months when we stopped hearing from him. As it turns out, he hasn't received the last three items we've sent to him. One is a study group assignment that MIM runs, and the other two are issue 8 (May 2009) and issue 9 (July 2009) of the newsletter Under Lock & Key.

Neither Mr. X, nor MIM Distributors were notified by the mail room that this mail was denied. This, of course, violates federal law Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800 which states that "The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor."

We request that in the future your mail room notifies Mr. Carter and MIM Distributors of censorship. Also, we request to know why the mail mentioned was denied delivery. If you could please mail us a copy of the Lanesboro CI mail rules, that would be of great help.

We look forward to your response.

MIM(Prisons)

CC: affected parties

Correspondence Review Committee
Hoke Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 700
Raeford, NC 28376

16 August 2009

Dear Madam/Sir,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).

Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.


Thank you for your time,

Correspondence Review Committee
Hoke Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 700
Raeford, NC 28376

16 August 2009

Dear Madam/Sir,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).

Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.


Thank you for your time,