Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Benjamin A. Wright, Publication Review Committee
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

21 April 2008

Mr. Wright,

I am responding to your letter dated March 31, 2008 regarding the decision to ban Issue #1 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key. As the letter was postmarked April 9, 2008 I believe I am writing within the 15 day period required to request a review of this decision.

The basis for my request for a review is the U.S. Supreme Court decision of THORNBURGH v. ABBOTT, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). The reason that you cite from Operating Procedure #803.2 is taken directly from THORNBURGH, which reads:

Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations generally permit prisoners to receive publications from the "outside," but authorize wardens, pursuant to specified criteria, to reject an incoming publication if it is found "to be detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity."

You cite the latter part of this sentence but ignore what it refers to as ?specified criteria,? which the case cites as being established in TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). TURNER reiterates the need to establish a ?valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate government interest? and that ?the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.? Citing the pages of the newsletter that provide a well-documented factual account of abuses that took place at Red Onion State Prison indicates a clear bias in determining the linkage of the material to a presumed threat to security. In fact, this is a textbook example of what the First Amendment exists for, to prevent the government from restricting the press to content that serves the interest of the government itself.

We hope that upon review you can act to rectify this blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution by the VADOC Publication Review Committee.

Sincerely,

pages 10 & 11 were the Under Lock & Key sections of MIM Notes containing letters from prisoners about what's going on behind bars.

On May 5th i was notified of the reversal, yet i didn't receive the "klean" issue of MT14 until May 8th, after i wrote to the Deputy Warden of Programs that the MT14 was not sent with the reversal notice per procedure.

Central Office Media Review Committee
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Bldg. 2, Rm 112
State Office Campus
1220 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12226

7 May 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

In March, Mr. XXXXXX E.Nkosithani XXXXXX (XXXXXX) notified MIM Distributors that a magazine (MIM Theory 14: United Front) mailed to him had been censored for the reason ?darkened ink splotches from bottom to top on pp. 124&125 and 108&109.? The magazine was not returned, and no notification was sent by the Department of Corrections to MIM Distributors. I have not been able to find anything in Directive 4572 that states that publications can be censored for printing errors within the publication.

On April 6, MIM Distributors sent another copy of the magazine to Mr. Nkosithani that did not appear to have any printing errors in it. This time Mr. Nkosithani notified MIM Distributors that the same magazine had been censored for ?16 pages? that were marked as ?incites violence, et cetera, in violation of Dir. 4572?? He has already submitted an appeal addressing the alleged violations point-by-point. We do not have a copy of the violations, as once again MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship by the department. So we will stand by Mr. Nkosithani?s appeal. It does seem that the Media Review Committee is grasping at straws for reasons to censor MIM Theory 14 since printing errors do not seem to pose a threat of any kind, and MIM?s literature has never incited violence as claimed in the most recent instance.

In addition to requesting an appeal to the decision to censor MIM Theory 14, I wish to request a clarification from the department of Title 9 7004.3(b)(1)(i)(ii). Is it not department policy that publishers be notified when and why their publications have been censored? Our recent experience with Upstate Correctional Facility, Bare Hill, Clinton and others show a regular practice of publications not being delivered to prisoners, not being returned to the publisher and no notification being sent to the publisher. If you could clarify the policy so that we know whether to expect this in the future, I would appreciate it.

Thank you for your time,