Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

12 March 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 36

To Ms. Bostic,

On March 11, 2014 MIM Distributors received notice of censorship of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, issue number 36. Once again, the reason given was ?A code? and page 2 was cited. Once again, I am requesting a review of this decision by your office.

When you respond, I am requesting that you provide an explanation of what portion of Under Lock & Key you find objectionable and why. To date you have not told me what the reason is for censoring any issue of Under Lock & Key, nor have you told me what portion of page 2 is objectionable to you. As I have pointed out to you countless times now, your claims cannot be addressed if you do not tell us what they are. If you cannot provide me with this information, please explain to me why this is not possible. Your refusal to do so will be regarded as a lack of good faith in resolving the ongoing obstruction of MIM Distributor's mail to prisoners held by the state of North Carolina.

This letter is the same as my January 31, 2014 letter regarding ULK issue 35, which you failed to respond to.


Please respond this time,

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

17 May 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 37

To Whom It May Concern,

I am requesting an independent review of the decision to censor Under Lock & Key 37. Notice of censorship was received by MIM Distributors on 15 May 2014 and I am writing you on 17 May 2014. I requested reviews of the decisions to censor the previous two issues of ULK in March and January, respectively, but my requests were not responded to.

In addition, MIM Distributors has gone so far as to remove all content from page 2 of the newsletter, since the NCDPS refused to indicate what content on that page was being used to justify censoring every issue of Under Lock & Key.

In the most recent incident Fay Lassiter has cited an article on fundraising and using money wisely and claims that it advocates ?Violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its' institutions.? I assert that this is a baseless accusation, and am requesting once again an explanation as to what content exactly your department finds to substantiate these claims in Under Lock & Key. MIM Distributors has acted in good faith to adjust the content of its mail to accommodate the restrictions of your department, but cannot continue to do so when all of its mail is censored without explanation.

Cynthia Bostic
Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4274 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4274

Re: Approval of issue No. 36 of Under Lock & Key. Disapproval of No. 37 of Under Lock & Key.

June 24, 2014

Dear Assistant Director Bostic,

We received on June 13, 2014 your response to our appeal of the Publication Review Committee decision to disapprove Under Lock & Key Nos. 36 and 37. Despite the letter being dated June 4, 2014, it is in fact postmarked June 11, 2014.

Regarding Under Lock & Key No. 36:

As to the approval of issue No. 36, we do not understand the reason why we should resubmit the publication ?to be received by inmates?, as you state in your letter. As you are certainly aware, section D.0105(d) of your Policy and Procedures, Chapter D, prescribes that all disapproved publications are held by the Review Committee pending the completion of the publisher?s appeal procedure. The policy specifies that, upon completion of the procedure, disapproved publications are returned to the facility and that approved publications are also ?returned to the facility from which they were received?, obviously enough to be then distributed to the prisoners to which they were originally sent. It would make no sense to return to the facilities only the disapproved publications, while obligating the publisher, upon the positive completion of the appeal procedure, to re-send the approved ones, which incidentally and illegitimately burdens the publisher with additional costs for which they should not be responsible. We are therefore requesting that the all the copies of the approved publication be returned to the facilities from which they came from and be distributed to the prisoners to which they were originally sent.

Regarding Under Lock & Key No. 37:

As to the disapproval of No. 37, you quote some language on page three, second column, paragraph 1 as the reason for disapproval. First, the phrases you quote are actually on page 1, second column, paragraph 1 of the publication. Furthermore, we disagree with your statement that the language could ever constitute a reason for disapproval. The language that you quote simply reports some opinions that encourage prisoners to make use of their constitutional rights, such as beginning legal action in case of abuses, torts and so forth. We do not comprehend how stopping ordering packages (a perfectly legitimate right that all prisoner have) might encourage or support insurrection, as you surprisingly state. None of the quoted language can be brought back to any of the legitimate reasons for disapproval, as they are listed at section D.0109 of the Policy.

Furthermore, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957.

Based on the above considerations, we request that you follow your Department's own Policy and Procedure in the further handling of Under Lock & Key No. 36. We expect that the previously censored issues will be returned to the Warden/Superintendents with your decision to approve the publication, and then the held issues will be distributed to their intended recipients, the prisoners, at your Department's expense.

Secondly, we request that your censorship determination regarding issue No. 37 of Under Lock & Key be reversed and that the publication be allowed to prisoners held at any facility of your Department.

Lastly, we request to be sent an up-to-date copy of the Master List of Disapproved Publications.

Please, be advised that in case you persist on your position to disapprove No. 37 of Under Lock & Key, we will consider beginning legal action to protect and enforce our rights as publishers in this matter.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

It usually takes between 5-16 days for me to receive mailings after the date you send the item. I just three days ago received the unconfirmed mail form (dated 6/25/14) concerning ULK 36's approval for receipt by me from you. No I still have not received ULK 36 and I'm not going to ever receive ULK 36 from NCDPS because NCDPS mailroom staff never presented me with neither a disapproval waiver/appeal nor statewide ban notification form. In other words, NCDPS mailroom staff just threw away/tossed that issue.

Reason .0109D
Violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its institutions.
Page Number(s): 4
Reason for Disapproval: Encourages insurrection and disorder.

Prisoner chooses to appeal censorship.
Explain your appeal:
1st Amendment rights

Correspondence... have been reviewed by the Correspondence Review Committee.
It has been determined that you cannot possess this correspondence and or contents.

Contents witheld only? X
Describe contents: Copy of book

Rease .0310 E The mail concerns plans to violate departmental rules and policies necessary to maintain security and control.

Comments: Correspondence violates DOC Policy & Procedure, in that the item(s) were mailed from a source other than a legitimate publisher.