Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Catherine S. Bauman
Industrial Park Drive
P. O. Box 600
Munising, MI 49862

15 December 2008

Warden Baumen,

We received the two Mail Rejection notices sent by S. Andrews on December 2, 2008 regarding issue 5 of Under Lock & Key sent to XXXXX and YYYYYY This letter is to appeal that decision.

The notices cite pages 2, 9 and 11. The articles on pages 2 and 9 both go into detail regarding MIM(Prisons)?s position that is given in the ?What is MIM(Prisons)?? box on page 2 of every issue of Under Lock & Key: ?Our current battles in the united states are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.?

The articles encourage discipline and patiently addressing any problems through legal venues. Therefore PD 05.03.118 would not apply. It is a violation of the First Amendment to censor materials because they are critical of the department or promote ideas that people in the government disagree with. It is also threat to the security of the institution to cut off avenues for grievances through the media and the courts.

We hope that upon review of this decision you will agree that this censorship was an incorrect application of the rules and contrary to the interests of the department as well as those being held prisoner at Alger Maximum.

Sincerely,

Ann Barsch, Administrative Assistant
Industrial Park Drive
P. O. Box 600
Munising, MI 49862

10 January 2009

Dear Ann Barsch,

We are in receipt of your letter from December 29, notifying us that the censorship of Under Lock & Key 5 has been upheld and you are attempting a system wide ban of MIM?s literature. I am taking you up on your offer for requesting more information on this matter.

You restate my reasons for appeal but you give no reasons to justify the decisions. Is this a secret hearing or can you inform the public as to why certain publications are banned? If you can inform us as to what the justifications were for this decision it would be very helpful to us in understanding the problem here.

Sincerely,

Fracisco J. Quintana, Warden
FCI McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford, PA 16701-0950

8 December 2008

Mr. Quintana,

This letter is in response to the enclosed notification of censorship of a letter we sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX, being held at FCI McKean. You cite PS5266.10 as the reasoning for the censorship, but in your explanation you base this on the political ideas put forth in the letter to Mr. XXXXXX. Therefore I am requesting an independent review of the decision, which was mailed to us on December 4th, 2008 on the basis that it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and does not abide to federal case law regarding the establishment of a threat to security.


Sincerely,

Michael Bowersox, Warden
South Central Correctional Center
255 W. Hwy 32
Licking, Mo. 65542



15 December 2008

Warden Bowersox,

This letter is regarding censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (123456) that we were just made aware of. No notification was ever sent to us by the mailroom regarding this censorship, nor were the materials returned to us.

The reason given for censorship was: ?promotes, violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law.? The pages cited in MIM Theory for censorship include articles on sex, history and MIM?s operational guidelines. None of these articles even deal with questions of violence or violating the law.

If you read page Under Lock & Key, you will see the box in every issue that states, ?Our current battles in the united states are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.? So in fact, MIM literature is exactly the opposite of what is being claimed.

Therefore, I am requesting that the decision be reviewed and the literature be given to Mr. XXXXXX.

Thank you for your time,

Warden Catherine S. Bauman
Industrial Park Drive
P. O. Box 600
Munising, MI 49862

15 December 2008

Warden Baumen,

We received the two Mail Rejection notices sent by S. Andrews on December 2, 2008 regarding issue 5 of Under Lock & Key sent to XXXXX and YYYYYY This letter is to appeal that decision.

The notices cite pages 2, 9 and 11. The articles on pages 2 and 9 both go into detail regarding MIM(Prisons)?s position that is given in the ?What is MIM(Prisons)?? box on page 2 of every issue of Under Lock & Key: ?Our current battles in the united states are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.?

The articles encourage discipline and patiently addressing any problems through legal venues. Therefore PD 05.03.118 would not apply. It is a violation of the First Amendment to censor materials because they are critical of the department or promote ideas that people in the government disagree with. It is also threat to the security of the institution to cut off avenues for grievances through the media and the courts.

We hope that upon review of this decision you will agree that this censorship was an incorrect application of the rules and contrary to the interests of the department as well as those being held prisoner at Alger Maximum.

Sincerely,

Sgt. Fleenor, Mail Room
Washington State Penitentiary
1313 N. 13th Ave
Walla Walla, WA 99362

3 November 2008

Sgt. Fleenor,

We recently obtained copies of two rejection notices for mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XYZ (#ABC). They were regarding a copy of MIM Theory 10 and two issues of our newsletter MIM Notes. The rejection notices gave the reason for censorship as ?Publication over the one year limit.? What is the ?one year limit?? We have distributed numerous copies of our theory journal and other literature to prisoners at WSP over the years that were published over a year prior to the mailing date and it was never a problem.

Curiously, the MIM Theory 10 rejection is dated 2 months after the literature was mailed. Isn?t there a time limit on how long you can hold our mail for review?

I fail to see how it is within the interests of the department to enforce a rule that prohibits reading materials that were not published in the year that they are sent. Can you please provide us with a citation of this rule? In addition, I am requesting a review of these two mail restriction notices, as I believe this to be an unreasonable and overly burdensome restriction on our mail.

Sincerely,

Facility Superintendent
Washington State Penitentiary
1313 N. 13th Ave
Walla Walla, WA 99362

14 December 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter is in response to the enclosed memo from Sgt. Fleenor. In it, he cites the DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2, to substantiate the censorship of MIM literature sent to Mr. XXXXXX. I have reviewed the policy and it certainly supports what Sgt. Fleenor has said. However, my question remains as to how this serves the legitimate penological interests of the department.

I do not know if this is a new rule or not, but as I stated in my previous letter MIM Distributors has been distributing literature it published in the early 1990s ever since the original publication date and it has never been a problem, nor do I see how it could be. Perhaps there is a reason for this rule that I am not seeing and it is being applied unnecessarily in this case?

I appreciate your response, including the DOC?s interpretation of this rule, because as it stands it seems to be an overly burdensome restriction of questionable legality. Therefore I am requesting a review of this decision and a response from the department.

Thank you for your time,