Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259

30 June 2009

Publication Review Officer,

This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners X, Y, Z, and P. The mail in question is MIM's newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009), that was denied because it supposedly is "detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline," and a threat to the "good order of the institution."

We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. However, we disagree that it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," as required by U.S. law under Turner v. Safley. For example, in every issue of Under Lock & Key, violence and illegal activity are distinctly discouraged. You can see for yourself at the bottom of page 2 of issue 8, in the "What is MIM(Prisons)?" box, quoted here for your convenience:

"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."

We don't only say this as a disclaimer on the second page, but uphold that perspective throughout all the articles in Under Lock & Key. We fail to see how a newsletter with a nonviolent perspective can "advocate or encourage violence," or how a newsletter that only advocates legal means of acquiring justice can "facilitate criminal activity," as the censorship notice from Menard Correctional Center states.

We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

Teresa Reynolds
Central Reading Committee
2862 South Circle Drive, Suite 150
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4195

27 May 2009

Greetings,

First, we received your May 7 letter addressed to explaining the censorship of a couple pages of Issue 6 of Under Lock & Key before giving the publication to Mr. XXXXX (#0000000). Thank you for specifying the concerns in that matter, as the original evaluation was not clear.

This letter is to request an appeal on the enclosed ?Reading Material Evaluation.? The explanation for censorship of Issue 7 of Under Lock & Key is that it is ?inciting to riot.? It cites 3,4,7, all of which explicitly argue against the use of violence in favor of legal action to address complaints that prisoners may have. I am quite certain that upon review you will find that there are no articles within the publication that incites prisoners to riot, but rather the whole publication repeatedly argues against such behavior.

If you do find any portions of ULK 7 to be objectionable for any reason, please let me know so that we can further address your concerns.

Thank you for your time,

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

23 June 2009

Mr. Adams,

In April I wrote you to request that the mail room at CSATF abide by the current mail policies of the CDCR, particularly as ordered in the court settlement with Prison Legal News that was approved over 2 years ago. Following that settlement, the illegal ban on MIM Distributor?s mail in California was rescinded.

In response to my April letter, C. Pugliese, Mailroom Sergeant acknowledged that the ban was overturned and that mail from MIM Distributors must be reviewed according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Yet, the mail in question was neither deemed to violate the CCR, nor was it forwarded to its intended recipient to our knowledge.

In addition, we have continued to receive notifications from people held at CSATF that their mail is being censored ?per memorandum from Division of Adult Institutions, ban of Maoist International Movement Publications.?

As of last month, CSATF is the only facility in California that is still treating the 2005 memo as current policy that we have documented. Can you please advise me as to why the mailroom staff are not following the rules that the mailroom sergeant acknowledges that it should be following?


Thank you for your time,

Richard Morgan, Director Prisons Division
Washington Dept. of Corrections
PO Box 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

14 June 2009

Dear Richard Morgan,

This letter is to follow up on correspondence that a few people receiving literature from MIM Distributors have been having with yourself and local DOC representatives. In the last eight months staff in prisons including Stafford Creek Corrections Center and Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) have begun using DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2, to substantiate the censorship of literature sent by MIM, citing ?Publication over the one year limit.?

I do not know the history of this policy, but its sudden frequent use against MIM Distributors seems to ?render the regulation arbitrary or irrational? as defined in TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). MIM Distributors has distributed its MIM Theory magazines to people held by the Washington DOC for over 15 years. During that time, various staff have tried to label the materials as different forms of ?a threat to security?, but overall the department has allowed people under their control to receive these journals. Why are they suddenly deemed unacceptable on a rule that has no apparent relevance to legitimate penological interests?

When this first began happening I appealed this censorship to the Facility Superintendent of WSP, but never received a response. In addition to MIM Theory journals, portions of an essay published a hundred years ago have been censored under the ?1 year? policy in Washington State Penitentiary. Meanwhile, in January, a letter to a person being held in Stafford Creek regarding this issue was returned to us with no reason given. I provide these as examples of staff going beyond even the stated policy in DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2 to censor MIM Distributors and discourage our efforts to correct the situation concerning the handling of MIM Distributors? mail.

As I wrote to the Superintendent at WSP, perhaps there is a reason for this rule that I am not seeing and it is being applied unnecessarily in regard to MIM Distributors mail? Whatever the case, I am requesting a response explaining the application of DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2 to publications sent by MIM Distributors and how it is related to ?legitimate penological interests.?

Thank you for your time,

Central Office Media Review Committee
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050

22 April, 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding a history of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to readers being held in Cayuga Correctional Facility, dating back to at least September of 2008. Recently, mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX. XXXXXX, YYYYYYY, and ZZZZZZZ was all returned with a stamp reading, ?Return to Sender Not on Approved Correspondence List.? I sent a letter to Cayuga to inquire about what the ?Approved Correspondence List? was and how one gets on such a list. I have yet to receive a response, but I did receive additional mail to Mr. XXXXXX. XXXXXX returned to MIM Distributors for the same reason given above.

Is there a regulation particular to Cayuga that requires someone to be put on an approved list to send mail to someone there? If so what is the process to get on that list? If not, how can we assure that mail from MIM Distributors is received by prisoners at Cayuga in the future?


Thank you for your time,