Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

March 16, 2013
Communications Office
North Carolina Department of Public Safety
4201 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4201

RECORDS REQUEST

Dear Records Request Officer:

Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of all records of independent reviews of disapproved mail from MIM(Prisons)/MIM Distributors to prisoners held by the state of North Carolina from January 1, 2011 to the present time, including any documents related to the decisions made in each case.

These documents can be sent to me at the street address above. If there are copying fees you can also just email the documents to mimprisons@lavabit.com, or notify me of the cost via email.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services, NCDPS
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

17 March 2013

RE: review censorship

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to the enclosed Letter to Publisher sent to MIM Distributors by Ms. Fay Lassiter. Over the last two years I've been writing to Lassiter and Ms. Cynthia Bostic to request, among other things, that they provide reasons for censoring mail from MIM Distributors. This recent letter from Lassiter states the reason as being, "A Code." As I've stated before, it is hard for us to address these issues when such meaningless explanations are put forth.

The letter does cite page 4 of Under Lock & Key No. 30. Based on the page numbers cited in the last couple notices we have received from your department it seems that pages containing the political ideology of MIM(Prisons) are being targeted for censorship. I would like to remind you of the law as established in Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401:

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant'"

I am requesting a review of the enclosed censorship decision. As I do so, I hope this legal standard will be kept in mind. And I, once again, request that you provide citation of how the newsletter in question violates the safety and security of the institution if you do uphold Ms. Lassiter's judgement.


Thank you,

According to FDOC's grievance procedure on mail room violations, one must first give the Warden a written notice that one intends to appeal the decision of rejection. On the face of 2/17/13 i received the rejection slip, but the rejection dates at 2/8/13. According to procedures, one has 15 days to appeal the rejection. Though the DOC has went out of their way to hinder my fight by doing this, I still filed an appeal to the administrator of library services in Tallahassee.

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,