Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden David Michael McCall, Jr.
Perry Correctional Institution
430 Oaklawn Road
Pelzer, SC 29669

4 January 2011

Dear Warden McCall,

I wrote to your office in November 2010 regarding the censorship of several articles of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Perry Correctional Institution. I have yet to hear a response from your office, and the censorship is ongiong.

In addition to requesting a response to my 15 November 2010 letter, I would like to request a copy of the policy governing the mail room staff at Perry CI, SCDC Policy PS-10-08, "Inmate Correspondence Privileges." Unfortunately I could not locate this policy on the SCDC website. Please send it to the address below.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

The material that was censored by this administration was the ULK Issue #2 February 2008. I received the June 2008 issue.

The reason for censorship:
1) Racially inflammatory material,
2) Promotes violence, disorder or violation of state or federal laws
3) Endangers the safety and security of the institution

I am currently filing a grievance on the issue and will copy all documents and forward them to you at my earliest convenience.

The administration has not, can not and will not define what is racially inflammatory. I have asked them to show exactly what in said material is racially inflammatory. They have continued to skirt around the issue.

My next move is to file a civil complaint under USCA 1983, for violation of my 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and continuous due process violations.

I will put together another letter, along with how I plan to go about fighting the censors here. Your assistance and support with the fight would be great.

Again I thank you for all of your love, support and efforts.

Troy Steele, Warden
Southeast Correctional Center
300 E. Pedro Simmons Drive, Highway 105
Charleston, Mo. 63834


9 September, 2008

Warden Steele,

This letter is regarding censorship of mail from MIM Distributors that was reported by Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#XXXXXX). According to his report, a copy of the newsletter Under Lock & Key (Issue 2) was censored with the following claims:

1) Racially inflammatory material
2) Promotes violence, disorder or violation of state or federal laws
3) Endangers safety and security of the institution

MIM Distributors has not received any notification from the department regarding this incident. Is it not department policy to notify a party when their mail has been censored? Please advise.

Mr. XXXXXX reported that he has already appealed the decision and could not get the staff at SECC to back up the claims made above. Since MIM openly opposes the use of violence or the violation of the law by its members and readers, and since MIM?s expressed purpose is to support the self-determination of all peoples, it is self-evident that none of the claims made can be substantiated.

Therefore, I am requesting that the decision be reviewed and the literature be given to Mr. XXXXXX. If upon review the department still deems the literature inappropriate, then please provide myself and Mr. XXXXXX with citations justifying the decision. The standard of Turner v. Safley (1987) 482 U.S. 78 was set to prevent every instance of censorship in prisons from going to court. The premise for that was that administrative measures must provide a basis for their decisions, which your staff has failed to do to date. Also see Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957, which established that unsupported security claims can not justify infringement on First Amendment rights.

Thank you for your time,

On the February 08 issue - the court ruled that "the first article in the publication discusses the rate of imprisonment across the United States for different races. Other articles highlight how the prison system is otherwise unfair to African-Americans and promotes 'modern day slavery.'"

The September '08 issue - The court concluded that "the publication does appear to encourage prisoners to "fight back" and "unite against the unjustice system."

Of course, the court took these statements out of the context in which they were written and implied.