Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Publication was sent to Columbus for review.

Robert M. Stevenson III, Warden
Broad River Correctional Institution
4460 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
803-896-2234

28 June 2010

Dear Warden Stevenson,

On 30 April 2010, a mail parcel from MIM Distributors was denied delivery to XXX, who is imprisoned at Broad River CI. There was a notice of rejection form returned with the parcel, which stated that "This correspondence contained publication Under Lock & Key not IHW SCDC PS 10.08/9 para 9.1 which is unauthorized per SCDC Policy PS-10.08, 'Inmate Correspondence Privileges.'"

We are writing this letter to ask you for a copy of the "Inmate Correspondence Privileges", so that we can avoid wasting your mailroom staff's time in the future. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate them on the internet. Please send them to the address above. We would appreciate your help in this matter.

Second, we would like to appeal this decision made by the mailroom staff at Broad River CI, because we do not believe that they gave a specific enough explanation for the censorship. In the parcel there were two issues of Under Lock & Key, number 9 (July 2009) and number 12 (Jan/Feb 2010). The notice of rejection did not cite which issue was alleged in violation of the SCDC policy, and did not cite what specifically was in violation.

As I am sure you are aware, incoming publications are generally protected from arbitrary censorship under the First Amendment, and this is upheld in several court cases. For this reason we would appreciate if a third party reviewed the censorship of this parcel to XXX, to check for arbitrariness.

We look forward to your response, and to receiving the "Inmate Correspondences Privileges" policies.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden
USP Atwater
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301

22 February 2010

Dear Warden,

This letter is regarding the blanket censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 12 (Jan/Feb 2010) from MIM Distributors to Mr. A-F at USP Atwater. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors marked "refused" but with no further explanation.


As we are sure you are aware,

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

and,

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800


Therefore, this letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key issue 12 should be "refused." The newsletter was received by many prisoners in the Federal system, all across the country. Apparently it was not "against regulations" at those hundreds of other facilities. Also, we request that the above mentioned prisoners be notified by mailroom staff of this censorship, as required by law.

We request (1) an independent review the decision made by USP Atwater mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as "refused." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 12 be deliverable to the above mentioned prisoners, and any other prisoner at USP Atwater who wishes to correspond with MIM Distributors.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties