Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Daniel Burns, Superintendent
SCI Laurel Highlands
5706 Glades Pike
P.O. Box 631
Somerset, PA 15501-0631

27 November 2010

Dear Superintendent Burns,

On 21 September 2010 we were informed by Mr. XXX, a prisoner at SCI Laurel Highlands, that a study group assignment we sent to him was censored due to "copyright infringement." I have included a copy of the material that you mailroom staff allege is in violation of copyright law.

As you can clearly see, at the top of the page is identifying information of the source of the material, which is "MIM Theory - Number 7 - 1995." First, MIM Theory magazines are not copyrighted in any form or fashion. Second, even if they were copyrighted, you can see by our return address and the stationary header, the organization who sent this material to Mr. XXXXXX is MIM Distributors. The organization that runs our prisoner study groups is called MIM(Prisons). Both organizations MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) obviously have permission to be copying and distributing MIM Theory materials, even if it isn't clear to mailroom staff that the magazine as a whole is not copyrighted.

Mr. XXX is enrolled in the next study group session which will be using photocopies of MIM Theory as study material. It is imperative that your mailroom staff is properly trained on how to handle suspected copyright infringement. It is also your legal obligation to ensure that your mailroom staff are not arbitrarily denying prisoners or MIM Distributors their First Amendment rights.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Brian V. Coleman, Superintendent
SCI Fayette
50 Overlook Dr.
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

27 November 2010

Dear Superintendent Coleman,

This letter is regarding several articles of mail that were sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at SCI Fayette. These articles of mail were not received by Mr. XXX, not returned to MIM Distributors, and neither parties were notified of a rejection of the items by SCI Fayette mailroom staff. The items in question were letters as well as a magazine titled MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism and a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 16(September/October 2010). The articles of mail were sent in during August and September 2010.

I would like to request (1) an investigation of the illegal denial without notification practice of SCI Fayette mailroom staff, (2) an investigation into why these articles of mail were denied by SCI Fayette mailroom staff, and (3) an immediate end to the tampering with mail between MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX. If you can come up with a reason why the mail was denied by mailroom staff, then (4) I would like to make an appeal for a second review by someone other than who made the initial rejection, because I am sure upon further review you will find no valid reason to censor these items.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Superintendent Brian V. Coleman
SCI-Fayette
50 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

4 January 2011

Dear Superintendent Coleman,

Thank you for your response to my 27 November 2010 letter. In your response you suggest that MIM Distributors did not send the articles in question, or that our mail carrier is the root of the problem. However, I assure you that MIM Distributors did in actuality send the mail to Mr. XXX as stated in our last letter to you. I also find it hard to believe your other claim that the USPS failed to deliver the number of letters in question. Is this a frequent problem that you have with your local USPS carrier? I think that you are trying to lay the blame on innocent parties, and I believe that the mailroom staff at SCI-Fayette are responsible for this censorship.

In your response you also say that Mr. XXX did not file a grievance regarding this issue. It wouldn't make sense for Mr. XXX to grieve the obstruction of MIM Distributors's First Amendment right, which is the protest I am raising in this letter. Of course he should file a grievance regarding his own Constitutional rights, but not ours. If your mailroom staff is simply throwing away mail from MIM Distributors without notifying anyone that this mail is received, what safeguards can you offer me that staff at SCI-Fayette are not interfering with MIM Distributors' right to free speech under the First Amendment?

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Wayne C. McCabe, Warden
Lieber Correctional Institution
136 Wilborn Avenue
P.O. Box 205
Ridgeville, SC 29472

21 November 2010

Dear Warden McCabe,

This letter is to protest the decision and procedure of mailroom staff at Lieber Correctional Institution. In the past several months there have been multiple instances of censorship of mail coming from MIM Distributors to prisoners at Lieber CI, which I will outline below, but I am primarily concerned with the most recent incident: blind censorship of the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010), which was returned, unopened, with "Ref" or "Refused" written on the outside.

Why exactly were these pieces of mail refused delivery? Why wasn't MIM Distributors, the publisher and distributor of Under Lock & Key, notified of the reason this newsletter was refused? Were the intended recipients notified of this censorship, and offered a chance to appeal the decision, as required by United States law?

I do not believe there is a valid penological reason why Under Lock & Key issue 16 should be denied delivery at Lieber CI, and I would like to appeal this erroneous decision made by mailroom staff to a higher and independent authority than the original censor.

In addition to the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 16, on multiple occasions, the mailroom staff at Lieber CI has refused delivery of a 6 page (3 sheet) letter to prisoners held there. The contents of this letter is an overview of the prisoner support services offered by MIM(Prisons). In May 2010 it was returned stamped "Unauthorized Item," unopened. In March 2010 it was returned with a notification stating that "newsletter or newspaper not allowed in max," yet this introductory letter is neither a newsletter nor a newspaper. In December 2009 this same introductory letter was returned, citing "SCDC Policy PS-10.08 'Inmate Correspondence Privileges,'" but there was no indication of what about this letter was in violation of Policy PS-10.08.

Based on the examples I outlined above regarding the nonsensical censorship of the introductory letter about MIM(Prisons), I would also like to request that you retrain your mailroom staff to properly handle mail coming from MIM Distributors in the future.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Taken from letter from prisoner:

"Pages 7 & 9 The article violates guideline II C Guideline II E of Directive 4572 as it contains gang related material which could incite violence if introduced into a New York State Correctional Facility.

"Pages 4-8, 12 & 13 Violate Guideline II D of Directive 4572, The Media Review Committee feels that this material, if introduced in a correctional setting, could incite lawlessness."

Chris Barela
Do?a Ana County Detention Center
1850 Copper Loop
Las Cruces, NM 88005


8 December 2008

Mr. Barela,

This is my second letter regarding mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#0712331). The latest incident of censorship occurred on November 18, 2008 when once again, Ms. Mary Trujillo rejected mail with the only stated reason being ?copies? (see enclosed). This is despite the fact that the envelope was clearly marked ?Legal Mail? and contained documents related to the investigation of illegal mail tampering at Do?a Ana.

As previously stated, ?copies? is not a legitimate justification for censorship within a United States penal institution. This is my second official request that you have Ms. Trujillo follow the law of the land in this matter.

We look forward to your response,

From United States Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico:

I am unable to find a logical connection between Defendants' stated goal of "monitoring contraband" and either a policy of rejecting "Internet copies of web sites" or a broader policy of rejecting mail that contains "copies." Defendants' stated penological interest in rejecting "internet copies of web sites," doc. 79 at 4, is to "monitor contraband." Id. Web sites exist for every conceivable topic, only some which would be incompatible with penological interests. The connection between the valid policy of monitoring contraband and prohibiting all letters enclosing copies of web sites is, thus, "so remote as to render the regulation arbitrary or irrational." Jones, 503 F. 3d at 1153.

Moreover, a review of the Mail Rejection Notices demonstrates that the rejection category of "copies" includes more than just "internet copies of web sites," and, indeed, likely includes more than xerox copies. Several rejected items were sent from MIM Distributors, a political organization that publishes, prints, and mails newsletters to prisoners. See doc. 84 at 3, 34, 39, 44, 48-51; see also doc. 83 at Exh. C (MIM correspondent expressly denied that its rejected mail was a "copy.") Four letters that included materials for an Esperanto course were likewise refused on the basis of "copies." See doc. 84 at 19, 54, 55, 59. Two letters were rejected due to "Copies (money order receipt.)" Id. at 4. Also, a letter from Liberty University was rejected because of "Copy (verification form)," id. at 58, and a brochure from a university was rejected due to "Copy of College Program and staples." Id. at 56; see also doc. 110. It seems exceedingly unlikely that all of these "copies" were print-offs of web sites. Indeed, some seem unlikely even to have been xeroxed...

Not only would it be nearly impossible for staff to accurately distinguish all copies from truly original documents (people can make hand-written copies, after all), but it is not clear how material that has been duplicated interferes with "monitoring contraband" any more than material that has not.

Regional Director
Gateway Complex Tower 11, 8th Floor
4th and State Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2492

20 December 2010

Dear Regional Director,

This letter is to request an independent review of the newsletter Under Lock & Key, issues 13 (March/April 2010), 14 (May/June 2010), and 15 (July/August 2010), which were censored to prisoners held at the United States Penitentiary - Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado. I have included copies of the rejection notices for these publications for your reference. For your review I have also included copies of issue 13 pages 6 and I I and issue 15 pages 4-5, which were cited as reasons for the censorship. I have included the entire publication of Under Lock & Key issue 14 because the whole publication is cited as the reason for censorship.

Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was censored because "the referenced pages discuss what to do with potential
infiltrators who join movements, not suitable for a prison environment." In what way is this article applicable to Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5266. 10, Incoming Publications? In what way is an article about regarding all comrades as potential infiltrators, and combatting this tactic by controlling information flow, "detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution"? How does this "facilitate criminal activity"? I question the motives of the staff at USP-AdMax in withholding this information from their prisoners.

Regarding the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 15 (July/August 2010), pages 4-5, a report on an incident that happened in a prison is distinctly different than providing "information on organizing food and hunger strikes." Under Lock & Key does not contain any more "information on organizing food and hunger strikes" than the New York Times. Is the New York Times also censored at USP-AdMax?

From page 4 of issue 15, "MIM(Prisons) adds: We do not think armed struggle now is a viable option for obtaining a more just society within the imperialist countries today. Therefore our strategic orientation opposes going up against the state in physical confrontations... It would be irresponsible for us to encourage prisoners to get in fights with guards." From a different article, also on page 4, "the key is to start things that can be done with smaller groups, such as lawsuits and study groups, or actions that require less commitment like petitions and fund drives." Clearly issue 15 does not "encourage violence and physical force to change conditions in a prison."

Page 5 of ULK 15 contains a report on a work/hunger strike in response to unanswered grievances regarding "open sewage around toilets and sinks, gaping holes in the shower walls, exposed plumbing, leaking roof in the living and sleeping area and the kitchen, and the constant arbitrary lockdowns." The author of the article clearly states that "the consensus was that we keep the strike peaceful." Stopping work and eating are in no way "violence or physical force to change conditions in a prison." Like I wrote above, what little information a reader may glean from these pages about how to organize a hunger strike could just as easily be gleaned from a similar article in a mainstream newspaper.

Therefore, I would like to request an independent review of issues 13, 14 and 15 of Under Lock & Key. I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties