Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

I just wrote you to notify you of my appeals submission. Well I was seen today in regards to my appeal by a facility Sgt. He advised me that there is no censorship on the material nor was it sent back for being disallowed. The reason neither party received a "1819 Disapproval of Mail Notice" was because they had me listed as "out to court" which was the writing on the envelope, "RTS - OC." He said mailroom made an error and he notified mailroom that said magazines are to be allowed if sent back and to take me off "out to court" for supposedly they had me mixed up with another inmate.

see documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" on 2/13/2011

I just wrote you to notify you of my appeals submission. Well I was seen today in regards to my appeal by a facility Sgt. He advised me that there is no censorship on the material nor was it sent back for being disallowed. The reason neither party received a "1819 Disapproval of Mail Notice" was because they had me listed as "out to court" which was the writing on the envelope, "RTS - OC." He said mailroom made an error and he notified mailroom that said magazines are to be allowed if sent back and to take me off "out to court" for supposedly they had me mixed up with another inmate.

see documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" on 2/13/2011

Superintendent Gerald L. Rozum
SCI-Somerset
1590 Walters Mill Road
Somerset, PA 15510-0001

5 January 2011

Dear Superintendent Rozum,

This letter is regarding the ongoing, illegal censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at SCI Somerset by SCI Somerset mailroom staff. Since his arrival at SCI Somerset in March 2009, MIM Distributors has mailed Mr. XXX several issues of the newsletter Under Lock & Key, listed below:

Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009)
Under Lock & Key issue 10 (September 2009)
Under Lock & Key issue 14 (May 2010)
Under Lock & Key issue 15 (July 2010)
Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September 2010)

All of these publications were sent via standard/bulk mail and have disappeared without a trace. Mr. XXX has not received them, and neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors were notified that they were censored or under investigation.

I would like to request (1) an investigation into this egregious obstruction of MIM Distributors's and Mr. XXX's First Amendment rights, (2) delivery of these publications to Mr. XXX if they have not already been destroyed by SCI Somerset employees, and (3) an immediate end to tampering with mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at SCI Somerset. If there is a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections that we are in violation of, please advise.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

see 2/17/2011 documentation

see documentation for 2/7/11

see documentation for 1/25/11

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.