MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).
For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.
Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.
The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.
The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?
We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX
We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).
For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.
Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.
The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.
The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?
We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX
We received five mail rejection notices from C. Hardy at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, which stated that the rejected materials had been ?Sent to Headquarters for Review.? Therefore, we are addressing this petition to you in hopes of reversing the decision. The materials were five issues of MIM Notes, the newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (see notices enclosed).
For all of these newspapers, none of the 34 reasons for rejecting mail were checked on the rejection notice. Reasons were given in the ?Comments? section by staff member C. Hardy. Two of the issues were rejected for ?Inciting to fight the justice system.? Actually, the pages cited have a section entitled ?Join the fight against the injustice system.? The first suggestion for things to do to help is to write letters like this in an effort to put an end to the widespread censorship problems in this country. Other suggestions are book drives, petitioning and providing people with housing and jobs after their release from prison. All of this work is put in the context of a larger campaign to end the system of injustice that in MIM?s view is systematic. This point of view is a federally protected political viewpoint and none of the actions suggested in this article threaten the safety of people at SCCC in any way.
Two of the newspapers are rejected for the alleged reason that they ?refer to security threat groups.? Curiously, page 11 of Issue #261 happens to feature a long article by a prisoner in Clallam Bay in Washington about censorship and other problems. The author lists a number organizations that he has contacted regarding these matters. I don?t know if you would consider any of those groups a security threat group, but there seems to be an ulterior motive of preventing prisoners in the WA DOC from reading information that might help them fight their own censorship battles.
The second paper censored for referring to a ?security threat group? is issue #343, pg. 4. On this page there is an article that mentions MIM, the FBI and the Democratic Party. Again, it is unclear which of these groups is considered an STG by the administration. But I would argue that it is hard to pick up an issue of any major newspaper these days that does not mention groups such as al-Qaeda as part of their daily news reporting. Al-Qaeda is on the U.S. Terrorist Organization list. Yet it doesn?t seem within the Department?s mandate to maintain the safety and the security of its facilities to censor these media for mentioning such groups.
The final issue is rejected for the cited reason of, ?full frontal nude picture.? Indeed that is a factually correct description. Yet the picture is of Vietnamese children who were napalmed by the U.S. military. The context of the image is clearly political and not sexual. As per the Department?s mail policy, ?sexually explicit? must be ?intended for sexual gratification.?
We hope that in review of these matters you will deem it appropriate to allow prisoners at SCCC to receive these issues of MIM Notes.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
cc: Superintendent Dan Pacholke, Stafford Creek
XXXXXX XXXXXX
Only paperback books, newspapers and periodicals paid in advance directly by inmates from their respective inamte accounts and sent from publishers will be accepted - reprinted from Coalition for Prisoners' Rights Newsletter (Jan 2008)
Mailroom Supervisor
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
PO Box 1000
Boscobel, WI 53805-0900
9 September, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of two notices of non-delivery of issue 4 (July 2007) of our publication, the Party Bulletin. In response to these notices I would like to request a copy of your Administrative Code pertaining to mailroom policy, particularly DOC 309.04(4)c 8. c., which is cited in the notices. We are also requesting that you review decisions in light of the lack of substantiating evidence for the reasoning given, as I will expand upon below.
The first box checked on the reason section of the notice reads, ?Item concerns an activity, which if completed would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the United States or the Administrative Rules of the Department of Corrections.? I can assure you that the Party Bulletin does not advocate any activities that violate the laws of the U.S. nor of Wisconsin. I can also say, that we would never knowingly encourage a prisoner in Wisconsin to break the established rules of the DOC. So if there is an activity that would break said rules in our publications, please notify me immediately and I will take appropriate action to deal with your concerns.
The second reason checked reads, ?Item poses a threat to the security, orderly operation, discipline or safety of the institution.? Since we do expressly advocate that prisoners do not break the rules in their facilities, I don?t believe there is any basis for this statement. In fact, over the years We have seen much evidence that prisoners engaged in political dialogue and organizing get into much less trouble than average and usually avoid any sort of altercations with staff or other prisoners.
Finally, the Sergeant wrote, ?newsletter is inciteful [sic] and promotes racial segregation.? I am not sure what exactly the Sergeant is referring to when s/he states that it is ?inciteful? or why that is necessarily a problem. In regard to promoting racial segregation, I assume you are referring to page 13 under Principles, where it is stated that We promote an independent New Afrikan people with Our own territory. You will note that in those very principles we define the New Afrikan nation as those who are a part of the culture and political current in support of the rights and self-determination of New Afrikan people. There are no racial requirements for joining Our movement. We don?t even believe that the grouping of people into biological races has any real scientific significance. We promote the freedom, independence and self-determination for all people in the form that they as a group decide for themselves.
We are familiar with the prevalence of ?racial strife? in the prison system across the country and sympathize with the concern of keeping those who would promote such conflict out of your facility. But please, do not make the oft-repeated mistake of calling the oppressed racist when We attempt to organize for Our rights as oppressed groups. A rereading of the Declaration of Independence will demonstrate the very ideas that we are promoting on page 13 were part of what led to the independence of the United States itself and that the founding fathers upheld the rights of any group of people to do as they did when the situation demanded.
The controversy seems to be over the political content of Our newsletter, which is not subject to the approval of prison staff. We hope that upon review you will agree with us on this matter and allow these two brothers to receive the Party Bulletin Issue 4, and all future issues. Please also send us a copy of your Administrative Code to help us avoid these problems in the future. We look forward to your response and appreciate your efforts to work this out with Us.
letter requesting rejection notices before we had media review paperwork
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
13 June 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently been brought to our attention that publications from MIM Distributors sent to XXXXXX XXXXX (XXXXXX) have been censored by your office. Mr. XXXXXXX reports that MIM Theory 13 and three issues of MIM Notes were rejected on the basis that they were ?racist.? We have not seen the official rejection notice, nor have we been notified of this censorship. I assume the materials have not been returned yet as the decision is still under review. But I am requesting a copy of the rejection notice, and any other rejection notices for our materials, so that we may effectively review and remedy this problem.
Thank you in advance for a timely response,
07/27/2007
supporting prisoner's appeal
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
27 July 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
On June 13 I wrote you to request documentation supporting the decision to censor MIM Theory 13 and MIM Notes 332-4. To date I have not received a response from you, but I have received copies of the Media Review decisions from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXXXX. He has already filed appeals to these decisions, as well as the decision to censor the Party Bulletin #3 by the New Afrikan Maoist Party. The purpose of this letter is also to request a review of these decisions.
Let me start with the NAMP?s Party Bulletin, since that is the easiest. Your staff cited pages 12 and 14 of Issue 3 as the objectionable sections, with no further justification. I have read these pages and all they contain is decisions by the organization regarding publishing articles and organization. Neither of these documents directly address prisoners or promote any kind of activity, lawless or not. So I am quite confident that you will find no reason to continue to hold this publication from inmates at Auburn.
For the 3 issues of MIM Notes staff cited pages 10 + 11, which contain ?Under Lock + Key? and ?MIM on Prisons and Prisoners.? These pages contain critiques of the prison system by MIM and MIM?s readers behind bars. Nowhere in those pages does MIM advocate breaking any rules or laws. It is illegal to censor materials because you do not agree with their views, even if they are critical of your institution.
The most interesting decision was that to censor MIM Theory 13. It seems that all of the portions that were deemed unacceptable by the FMRC are critical of the very things that the FMRC claims to be opposed to. The first objection is to the article ?On Prison Leadership? for allegedly promoting lawlessness and disobedience among prisoners. Yet this article criticizes prisoners for assaulting Correctional Officers and claiming it is a political act. Elsewhere the author criticizes those who use force to keep others in their organizations. Exactly the kind of behavior that prison officials all over the country are also trying to prevent. While you may not agree with all of the author?s views on prisons, certainly you can unite on these issues, which are at the heart of the objections raised by the FMRC.
The next problem that the FMRC had with MT13 is alleged ?racist imagery.? This imagery is in two pieces of art. One uses a Klansman on the flag of the United States to criticize institutionalized racism and violence against Black people. The other uses a klansman again for the same purpose of criticizing white power among the police. In both pieces of art it is clear that the use of the klansman image is being used to oppose and not promote racism. The first even has a caption explaining the art in case readers are confused about the message behind it. To censor an anti-racist cartoon for being ?racist imagery? is contradictory to the goal of combating the problem of racism in the first place.
Lastly, the FMRC cites a review of Hitler?s Mein Kampf as objectionable. As if talking about a racist person is somehow promoting racist ideology. I am sure you would not censor other magazines that talk about Hitler as figure of history, and there is no justification for censoring MIM Theory for doing the same.
In light of these points, I hope you will find that there are no legal justifications for the refusal to allow Mr. XXXXXX and others at Auburn Correctional Facility to receive MIM?s publications.
Once again I request your review of these matters and your response to my requests. We do not take these matters lightly and we will continue to ensure that our First Amendment rights to speech and affiliation are upheld.
Mailroom Supervisor
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
PO Box 1000
Boscobel, WI 53805-0900
9 September, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of two notices of non-delivery of issue 4 (July 2007) of our publication, the Party Bulletin. In response to these notices I would like to request a copy of your Administrative Code pertaining to mailroom policy, particularly DOC 309.04(4)c 8. c., which is cited in the notices. We are also requesting that you review decisions in light of the lack of substantiating evidence for the reasoning given, as I will expand upon below.
The first box checked on the reason section of the notice reads, ?Item concerns an activity, which if completed would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the United States or the Administrative Rules of the Department of Corrections.? I can assure you that the Party Bulletin does not advocate any activities that violate the laws of the U.S. nor of Wisconsin. I can also say, that we would never knowingly encourage a prisoner in Wisconsin to break the established rules of the DOC. So if there is an activity that would break said rules in our publications, please notify me immediately and I will take appropriate action to deal with your concerns.
The second reason checked reads, ?Item poses a threat to the security, orderly operation, discipline or safety of the institution.? Since we do expressly advocate that prisoners do not break the rules in their facilities, I don?t believe there is any basis for this statement. In fact, over the years We have seen much evidence that prisoners engaged in political dialogue and organizing get into much less trouble than average and usually avoid any sort of altercations with staff or other prisoners.
Finally, the Sergeant wrote, ?newsletter is inciteful [sic] and promotes racial segregation.? I am not sure what exactly the Sergeant is referring to when s/he states that it is ?inciteful? or why that is necessarily a problem. In regard to promoting racial segregation, I assume you are referring to page 13 under Principles, where it is stated that We promote an independent New Afrikan people with Our own territory. You will note that in those very principles we define the New Afrikan nation as those who are a part of the culture and political current in support of the rights and self-determination of New Afrikan people. There are no racial requirements for joining Our movement. We don?t even believe that the grouping of people into biological races has any real scientific significance. We promote the freedom, independence and self-determination for all people in the form that they as a group decide for themselves.
We are familiar with the prevalence of ?racial strife? in the prison system across the country and sympathize with the concern of keeping those who would promote such conflict out of your facility. But please, do not make the oft-repeated mistake of calling the oppressed racist when We attempt to organize for Our rights as oppressed groups. A rereading of the Declaration of Independence will demonstrate the very ideas that we are promoting on page 13 were part of what led to the independence of the United States itself and that the founding fathers upheld the rights of any group of people to do as they did when the situation demanded.
The controversy seems to be over the political content of Our newsletter, which is not subject to the approval of prison staff. We hope that upon review you will agree with us on this matter and allow these two brothers to receive the Party Bulletin Issue 4, and all future issues. Please also send us a copy of your Administrative Code to help us avoid these problems in the future. We look forward to your response and appreciate your efforts to work this out with Us.
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Letter to MRC Chairperson including PB3 for review
Show Text
Sharon Benson-Perry, Media Review Chairperson
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
August 26, 2007
Dear Sharon Benson-Perry:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 30, which we received here on August 9th. In it you state that there is no record of the censorship of 15 issues of issue 3 of the Party Bulletin. The newsletters were originally mailed out on June 12. They were all mailed back to us on June 27th in a large manila envelope. Each issue was individually stamped with a standard rejection stamp bearing multiple options, with the option ?Contents Prohibited (photo)? checked, and the ?(photo)? part crossed out. Since there was no record of this action by the Media Review Board at Clinton Correctional Facility you were unable to respond to my request for a review of the decision and a further explanation for it.
Enclosed is a copy of the publication in question per your request. We are confident that you will find that the contents of the publication are not prohibited according to the regulations at Clinton. Please notify us of your decision so that we can resend the newsletters to our subscribers at your facility.
Literature/publications from MIM per Title 15 and HDSP Mailroom Op #605 creates security and safety risks within the institution.[Download Documentation]
request for rejection notices before we had any paperwork
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
13 June 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently been brought to our attention that publications from MIM Distributors sent to XXXXXX XXXXX (XXXXXX) have been censored by your office. Mr. XXXXX reports that MIM Theory 13 and three issues of MIM Notes were rejected on the basis that they were ?racist.? We have not seen the official rejection notice, nor have we been notified of this censorship. I assume the materials have not been returned yet as the decision is still under review. But I am requesting a copy of the rejection notice, and any other rejection notices for our materials, so that we may effectively review and remedy this problem.
Thank you in advance for a timely response,
07/27/2007
support for prisoner's appeal
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
27 July 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
On June 13 I wrote you to request documentation supporting the decision to censor MIM Theory 13 and MIM Notes 332-4. To date I have not received a response from you, but I have received copies of the Media Review decisions from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXX. He has already filed appeals to these decisions, as well as the decision to censor the Party Bulletin #3 by the New Afrikan Maoist Party. The purpose of this letter is also to request a review of these decisions.
Let me start with the NAMP?s Party Bulletin, since that is the easiest. Your staff cited pages 12 and 14 of Issue 3 as the objectionable sections, with no further justification. I have read these pages and all they contain is decisions by the organization regarding publishing articles and organization. Neither of these documents directly address prisoners or promote any kind of activity, lawless or not. So I am quite confident that you will find no reason to continue to hold this publication from inmates at Auburn.
For the 3 issues of MIM Notes staff cited pages 10 + 11, which contain ?Under Lock + Key? and ?MIM on Prisons and Prisoners.? These pages contain critiques of the prison system by MIM and MIM?s readers behind bars. Nowhere in those pages does MIM advocate breaking any rules or laws. It is illegal to censor materials because you do not agree with their views, even if they are critical of your institution.
The most interesting decision was that to censor MIM Theory 13. It seems that all of the portions that were deemed unacceptable by the FMRC are critical of the very things that the FMRC claims to be opposed to. The first objection is to the article ?On Prison Leadership? for allegedly promoting lawlessness and disobedience among prisoners. Yet this article criticizes prisoners for assaulting Correctional Officers and claiming it is a political act. Elsewhere the author criticizes those who use force to keep others in their organizations. Exactly the kind of behavior that prison officials all over the country are also trying to prevent. While you may not agree with all of the author?s views on prisons, certainly you can unite on these issues, which are at the heart of the objections raised by the FMRC.
The next problem that the FMRC had with MT13 is alleged ?racist imagery.? This imagery is in two pieces of art. One uses a Klansman on the flag of the United States to criticize institutionalized racism and violence against Black people. The other uses a klansman again for the same purpose of criticizing white power among the police. In both pieces of art it is clear that the use of the klansman image is being used to oppose and not promote racism. The first even has a caption explaining the art in case readers are confused about the message behind it. To censor an anti-racist cartoon for being ?racist imagery? is contradictory to the goal of combating the problem of racism in the first place.
Lastly, the FMRC cites a review of Hitler?s Mein Kampf as objectionable. As if talking about a racist person is somehow promoting racist ideology. I am sure you would not censor other magazines that talk about Hitler as figure of history, and there is no justification for censoring MIM Theory for doing the same.
In light of these points, I hope you will find that there are no legal justifications for the refusal to allow Mr. XXXXX and others at Auburn Correctional Facility to receive MIM?s publications.
Once again I request your review of these matters and your response to my requests. We do not take these matters lightly and we will continue to ensure that our First Amendment rights to speech and affiliation are upheld.
This letter comes in response to a letter we received from Mr. XXXXXX (XXXXXX) in which he enclosed notices from the COMRC upholding the decision of the Auburn Media Review Committee to censor pages 10 and 11, the Under Lock & Key section, of three issues of MIM Notes.
The reason given is Guideline E of Directive #4572, and the decisions claim that the issues of MIM Notes encourage ?armed organized resistence in the part [sic] of inmates and society in general.? Now, in over 2 decades of publishing I can tell you for a fact that MIM Notes has never once encouraged people in this society to take up arms, and we regularly discourage prisoners from getting into any physical confrontations, not to mention armed resistance.
To address these specific issues of MIM Notes, pages 10 and 11 consist of letter writing campaigns to protest censorship, statements encouraging the spread of literature and stories from prisoners about the conditions they face. Nowhere is armed resistance even mentioned as far as I found. If you disagree, please indicate exactly where armed resistance is mentioned and advocated on these pages.
Certainly, our campaigns against censorship and abuse are not what you are referring to as encouraging armed organized resistance. As this work is armed with nothing but pen and paper and the mere existence of your office and the review and appeal process indicates your recognition for the need of due process and the ability to challenge decisions around censorship and other restrictions of prisoners and their friends and families.
I have enclosed my previous correspondence with the Auburn Media Review Committee for your reference. I never received any response from them regarding these matters. If you cannot substantiate your claims regarding the encouraging of armed resistance, we expect these decisions to be reversed and our publication to be allowed to reach prisoners in full in the future.
request for rejection notices before we had paperwork
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
13 June 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently been brought to our attention that publications from MIM Distributors sent to XXXXXX XXXXX (XXXXXX) have been censored by your office. Mr. XXXXX reports that MIM Theory 13 and three issues of MIM Notes were rejected on the basis that they were ?racist.? We have not seen the official rejection notice, nor have we been notified of this censorship. I assume the materials have not been returned yet as the decision is still under review. But I am requesting a copy of the rejection notice, and any other rejection notices for our materials, so that we may effectively review and remedy this problem.
Thank you in advance for a timely response,
07/27/2007
support for prisoner's appeal
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
27 July 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
On June 13 I wrote you to request documentation supporting the decision to censor MIM Theory 13 and MIM Notes 332-4. To date I have not received a response from you, but I have received copies of the Media Review decisions from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXX. He has already filed appeals to these decisions, as well as the decision to censor the Party Bulletin #3 by the New Afrikan Maoist Party. The purpose of this letter is also to request a review of these decisions.
Let me start with the NAMP?s Party Bulletin, since that is the easiest. Your staff cited pages 12 and 14 of Issue 3 as the objectionable sections, with no further justification. I have read these pages and all they contain is decisions by the organization regarding publishing articles and organization. Neither of these documents directly address prisoners or promote any kind of activity, lawless or not. So I am quite confident that you will find no reason to continue to hold this publication from inmates at Auburn.
For the 3 issues of MIM Notes staff cited pages 10 + 11, which contain ?Under Lock + Key? and ?MIM on Prisons and Prisoners.? These pages contain critiques of the prison system by MIM and MIM?s readers behind bars. Nowhere in those pages does MIM advocate breaking any rules or laws. It is illegal to censor materials because you do not agree with their views, even if they are critical of your institution.
The most interesting decision was that to censor MIM Theory 13. It seems that all of the portions that were deemed unacceptable by the FMRC are critical of the very things that the FMRC claims to be opposed to. The first objection is to the article ?On Prison Leadership? for allegedly promoting lawlessness and disobedience among prisoners. Yet this article criticizes prisoners for assaulting Correctional Officers and claiming it is a political act. Elsewhere the author criticizes those who use force to keep others in their organizations. Exactly the kind of behavior that prison officials all over the country are also trying to prevent. While you may not agree with all of the author?s views on prisons, certainly you can unite on these issues, which are at the heart of the objections raised by the FMRC.
The next problem that the FMRC had with MT13 is alleged ?racist imagery.? This imagery is in two pieces of art. One uses a Klansman on the flag of the United States to criticize institutionalized racism and violence against Black people. The other uses a klansman again for the same purpose of criticizing white power among the police. In both pieces of art it is clear that the use of the klansman image is being used to oppose and not promote racism. The first even has a caption explaining the art in case readers are confused about the message behind it. To censor an anti-racist cartoon for being ?racist imagery? is contradictory to the goal of combating the problem of racism in the first place.
Lastly, the FMRC cites a review of Hitler?s Mein Kampf as objectionable. As if talking about a racist person is somehow promoting racist ideology. I am sure you would not censor other magazines that talk about Hitler as figure of history, and there is no justification for censoring MIM Theory for doing the same.
In light of these points, I hope you will find that there are no legal justifications for the refusal to allow Mr. XXXXX and others at Auburn Correctional Facility to receive MIM?s publications.
Once again I request your review of these matters and your response to my requests. We do not take these matters lightly and we will continue to ensure that our First Amendment rights to speech and affiliation are upheld.
Letter to Central Office appealing decision
Show Text
COMRC
Building 2, State Campus
Albany, NY 12222
11 August 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter comes in response to a letter we received from Mr. XXXXXX (XXXXXX) in which he enclosed notices from the COMRC upholding the decision of the Auburn Media Review Committee to censor pages 10 and 11, the Under Lock & Key section, of three issues of MIM Notes.
The reason given is Guideline E of Directive #4572, and the decisions claim that the issues of MIM Notes encourage ?armed organized resistence in the part [sic] of inmates and society in general.? Now, in over 2 decades of publishing I can tell you for a fact that MIM Notes has never once encouraged people in this society to take up arms, and we regularly discourage prisoners from getting into any physical confrontations, not to mention armed resistance.
To address these specific issues of MIM Notes, pages 10 and 11 consist of letter writing campaigns to protest censorship, statements encouraging the spread of literature and stories from prisoners about the conditions they face. Nowhere is armed resistance even mentioned as far as I found. If you disagree, please indicate exactly where armed resistance is mentioned and advocated on these pages.
Certainly, our campaigns against censorship and abuse are not what you are referring to as encouraging armed organized resistance. As this work is armed with nothing but pen and paper and the mere existence of your office and the review and appeal process indicates your recognition for the need of due process and the ability to challenge decisions around censorship and other restrictions of prisoners and their friends and families.
I have enclosed my previous correspondence with the Auburn Media Review Committee for your reference. I never received any response from them regarding these matters. If you cannot substantiate your claims regarding the encouraging of armed resistance, we expect these decisions to be reversed and our publication to be allowed to reach prisoners in full in the future.
request for rejection notices before we had them
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
13 June 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently been brought to our attention that publications from MIM Distributors sent to XXXXXX XXXXX (XXXXXX) have been censored by your office. Mr. XXXXX reports that MIM Theory 13 and three issues of MIM Notes were rejected on the basis that they were ?racist.? We have not seen the official rejection notice, nor have we been notified of this censorship. I assume the materials have not been returned yet as the decision is still under review. But I am requesting a copy of the rejection notice, and any other rejection notices for our materials, so that we may effectively review and remedy this problem.
Thank you in advance for a timely response,
07/27/2007
support for prisoner's appeal
Show Text
Media Review Committee
Auburn Correctional Facility
PO Box 618
Auburn, NY 13024
27 July 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
On June 13 I wrote you to request documentation supporting the decision to censor MIM Theory 13 and MIM Notes 332-4. To date I have not received a response from you, but I have received copies of the Media Review decisions from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXX. He has already filed appeals to these decisions, as well as the decision to censor the Party Bulletin #3 by the New Afrikan Maoist Party. The purpose of this letter is also to request a review of these decisions.
Let me start with the NAMP?s Party Bulletin, since that is the easiest. Your staff cited pages 12 and 14 of Issue 3 as the objectionable sections, with no further justification. I have read these pages and all they contain is decisions by the organization regarding publishing articles and organization. Neither of these documents directly address prisoners or promote any kind of activity, lawless or not. So I am quite confident that you will find no reason to continue to hold this publication from inmates at Auburn.
For the 3 issues of MIM Notes staff cited pages 10 + 11, which contain ?Under Lock + Key? and ?MIM on Prisons and Prisoners.? These pages contain critiques of the prison system by MIM and MIM?s readers behind bars. Nowhere in those pages does MIM advocate breaking any rules or laws. It is illegal to censor materials because you do not agree with their views, even if they are critical of your institution.
The most interesting decision was that to censor MIM Theory 13. It seems that all of the portions that were deemed unacceptable by the FMRC are critical of the very things that the FMRC claims to be opposed to. The first objection is to the article ?On Prison Leadership? for allegedly promoting lawlessness and disobedience among prisoners. Yet this article criticizes prisoners for assaulting Correctional Officers and claiming it is a political act. Elsewhere the author criticizes those who use force to keep others in their organizations. Exactly the kind of behavior that prison officials all over the country are also trying to prevent. While you may not agree with all of the author?s views on prisons, certainly you can unite on these issues, which are at the heart of the objections raised by the FMRC.
The next problem that the FMRC had with MT13 is alleged ?racist imagery.? This imagery is in two pieces of art. One uses a Klansman on the flag of the United States to criticize institutionalized racism and violence against Black people. The other uses a klansman again for the same purpose of criticizing white power among the police. In both pieces of art it is clear that the use of the klansman image is being used to oppose and not promote racism. The first even has a caption explaining the art in case readers are confused about the message behind it. To censor an anti-racist cartoon for being ?racist imagery? is contradictory to the goal of combating the problem of racism in the first place.
Lastly, the FMRC cites a review of Hitler?s Mein Kampf as objectionable. As if talking about a racist person is somehow promoting racist ideology. I am sure you would not censor other magazines that talk about Hitler as figure of history, and there is no justification for censoring MIM Theory for doing the same.
In light of these points, I hope you will find that there are no legal justifications for the refusal to allow Mr. XXXXX and others at Auburn Correctional Facility to receive MIM?s publications.
Once again I request your review of these matters and your response to my requests. We do not take these matters lightly and we will continue to ensure that our First Amendment rights to speech and affiliation are upheld.
Thank you for your time,
08/11/2007
Central Office denied appeal- 2 pages cut out (ULK)
08/12/2007
Appeal to Central Office
Show Text
COMRC
Building 2, State Campus
Albany, NY 12222
11 August 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter comes in response to a letter we received from Mr. XXXXXX (XXXXXX) in which he enclosed notices from the COMRC upholding the decision of the Auburn Media Review Committee to censor pages 10 and 11, the Under Lock & Key section, of three issues of MIM Notes.
The reason given is Guideline E of Directive #4572, and the decisions claim that the issues of MIM Notes encourage ?armed organized resistence in the part [sic] of inmates and society in general.? Now, in over 2 decades of publishing I can tell you for a fact that MIM Notes has never once encouraged people in this society to take up arms, and we regularly discourage prisoners from getting into any physical confrontations, not to mention armed resistance.
To address these specific issues of MIM Notes, pages 10 and 11 consist of letter writing campaigns to protest censorship, statements encouraging the spread of literature and stories from prisoners about the conditions they face. Nowhere is armed resistance even mentioned as far as I found. If you disagree, please indicate exactly where armed resistance is mentioned and advocated on these pages.
Certainly, our campaigns against censorship and abuse are not what you are referring to as encouraging armed organized resistance. As this work is armed with nothing but pen and paper and the mere existence of your office and the review and appeal process indicates your recognition for the need of due process and the ability to challenge decisions around censorship and other restrictions of prisoners and their friends and families.
I have enclosed my previous correspondence with the Auburn Media Review Committee for your reference. I never received any response from them regarding these matters. If you cannot substantiate your claims regarding the encouraging of armed resistance, we expect these decisions to be reversed and our publication to be allowed to reach prisoners in full in the future.
Item concerns an activity, which if completed would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the U.S. or DOC/Item poses a threat to security, orderly operation, discipline or seafety of the institution[Download Documentation]
Item concerns an activity, which if completed would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the U.S. or DOC/Item poses a threat to security, orderly operation, discipline or seafety of the institution[Download Documentation]
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
Media Review Committee
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000
July 15, 2007
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the censorship of 15 copies of Issue 3 of the New Afrikan Maoist Party?s Party Bulletin. These were mailed back to NAMP on June 27, 2007 without a notice from your office. They were merely stamped ?RTS Contents Prohibited.? This letter is to request a review of this decision and to further inquire as to the reasoning behind the decision to prohibit the publication.
As you may be aware, a member of Our movement is currently engaged in a legal battle with staff at Clinton Correctional Facility for allegedly being involved in an unauthorized organization because of his affiliation with NAMP. And you may also be aware that according to the DOCS rules, an outside organization does not fall under the guise of the rule forbidding involvement in ?unauthorized organizations.? This, of course, would be a violation of Our First Amendment rights to association.
This recent bit of censorship indicates to Us that Clinton Correctional Facility is continuing with its practice of censoring and persecuting members of Our movement. We hope that upon your review of this matter you will see that there is no reason to justify such actions.
We respectfully request your timely response to this matter,
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c98.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c84.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c80.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c82.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c83.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c81.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c85.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c78.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c79.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c141.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c67.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c66.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c172.jpg){kind=link}