Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Sharon Benson-Perry, Media Review Chairperson
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000

January 7, 2007

Dear Sharon Benson-Perry:

In August I had sent you a response to your most recent letter to Us with a copy of the third issue of Our publication the Party Bulletin for your review. You had requested a copy so that it could be reviewed and (hopefully) approved to avoid the long standing policy of the Clinton mailroom of returning, and now apparently discarding, any mail from Our organization. I never received a response from you about the Party Bulletin that was sent.

Just recently it was brought to my attention that Issue 5 of the Party Bulletin was then censored at Clinton Correctional Facility in September of last year. We were never notified of this censorship, the materials were not even returned to Us. Is it now the policy of Clinton to destroy any mail from NAMP that is sent to prisoners at the facility?

I am requesting a response to this inquiry explaining the justification for censorship of Our publication at Clinton. We have also begun mailing Our literature delivery confirmation in hopes that staff will be encouraged to follow the standard administrative procedures in handling mail and media review procedures.

We are aware of certain individuals at Clinton who have taken it upon themselves to spearhead the campaign against prisoners who receive literature from Our organization. We hope it is within your ability to rein in these individuals so that they adhere to NYS DOCS policy as well as the United States Constitution.

Please respond at your earliest convenience so that we may resolve this issue.

Sincerely,

Sharon Benson-Perry, Media Review Chairperson
Clinton Correctional Facility
PO Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929-2000

February 3, 2008

Dear Sharon Benson-Perry:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my previous letter and explaining why media is not always returned to the sender. However, a brief look at the handling of literature from NAMP at Clinton will make it clear where my confusion may have come from.

As you?ll recall, the first time I wrote you was in response a stack of copies of one of our newsletters that were all stamped ?Contents Prohibited? and sent right back to us. When I wrote to inquire about the reasoning for this you claimed that there was no record of the newsletters arriving or being censored.

In the most recent incident I wrote you about neither our office nor Mr XXXXXX XXXXXX, who we had sent our newsletter to, had received any notification of censorship, yet the newsletter was not received. Hence, my inquiry into whether it is now Clinton Correctional Facility?s policy to discard any mail from NAMP to avoid having to deal with justifying the censorship of our mail. Since it clearly is not, I would hope that this practice ends immediately.

In your January 22 letter you write, ?If a portion of reviewed material is disapproved, each individual inmate is notified and given an opportunity to have the material sent home, or redacted (if under 8 pages) and sent to him? Nothing is destroyed unless it is done so at the inmate?s request.? And ?media is sent to individual inmates and would not ordinarily be returned to sender unless the inmate so requests.? Our experience has shown none of these statements to be true in practice. So you can see why we had expressed the hope in our last letter that you can get Clinton CF staff to adhere to NYS DOCS policies. Seems that would make both of our lives a bit easier.

As you are aware, there is a lawsuit pending regarding the handling of our mail and prisoners in possession of our literature in the NYS DOCS, specifically Clinton Correctional Facility. We continue to document the unsubstantiated incidents of censorship that are occurring at Clinton as part of this case and hope that we can convince staff to adhere to department policies in the near future.

Sincerely,

Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914

9 December 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.

The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.

The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.

Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.

While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914

9 December 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.

The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.

The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.

Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.

While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914

9 December 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to XXXXX XXXXXX. Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.

The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.

The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.

Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.

While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Deputy Director J. Jabe
Division of Operations
Virginia Department of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

15 December 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

Shortly after my last letter I received further documentation of censorship of MIM?s mail at Red Onion State Prison from Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). As of today, we have still not received a response to our appeal made in late November.

Two of the documents were regarding grievances filed by Mr. XXXXXX regarding the censorship of a number of publications including MIM Notes and MIM Theory. The final decision made by yourself upheld the censorship for Operating Procedure 803.2 #7, 13 and 14. In my previous letter I addressed these claims in relation to MIM literature. These new documents merely recite these rules, without providing any substantiating evidence. As Mr. XXXXXX points out, it is not legal to block our mail for reasons of political disagreements or discrimination against Black or other minority group organizations. Therefore, I am reiterating our request for specific citations of the material that is alleged to have violated these procedures.

The third document was in reference to the most recent incident of censorship of a letter sent from MIM to Mr. XXXXXX in October. The memo from Major K. Chris claims that MIM study group material violated 803.2 #7, 13, 14 and 15. The new procedure (15) refers to publications in a language other than English or written in code. The study group material was a set of questions on the topic of a philosophy text regarding materialism and idealism. This was also sent with a copy of the letter of inquiry I had sent to your office that I was carbon copying to Mr. XXXXXX. I am at a total loss as to which portions of these materials were deemed to violate any of the rules cited.

Please pass our mail along to Mr. XXXXXX or provide us with specific citations of how each item violates each operating procedure cited.

Sincerely,

Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914

9 December 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to XXXXX XXXXXX. Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.

The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.

The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.

Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.

While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Major K. Chris, Chief of Security
Red Onion State Prison
PO Box 1900
Pound, VA 24279

28 September 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has recently come to our attention that mail from MIM Distributors is being censored at Red Onion State Prison. We just received documentation of censorship that you authorized in May on the basis of Division Operating Procedure 852, Section 852-7.8 #7 & #13. From what we have been told by prisoners on our mailing list all of our mail is being rejected with the justification that it is ?STG-related? material.

We are requesting a copy of the Division Operating Procedure so that we can further address this matter. In addition, if it is true that the cited sections refer to our mail being related to a Security Threat Group, we are also requesting a justification from the department for this accusation.

We look forward to your response,

Publication Review Committee
Virginia Department of Corrections
6900 Atmore Drive
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

15 October 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is to repeat the requests that we had sent to Major K. Chris last month. Major Chris responded by saying that we should refer any inquiries to your office (see enclosed). We have not received a copy of your Division Operating Procedure or any explanation for the censorship that MIM Distributors faced earlier this year. We have enclosed some of the censorship notices that we have received so far.

We look forward to your response,