MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Missouri Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
2927 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
MIM Theory: United Front – 2001 - ? 14
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been notified of censorship by the Missouri Department of Corrections of MIM Theory: United Front (hereinafter, “publication”) as referenced above. We are the publishers of the publication.
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key and MIM Theory. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012).
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand the Missouri Department of Corrections provide notice as to the detailed reasons for such censorship with specific references to the material found to be objectionable. We reserve our right to appeal any censorship upon receipt of said amended notice.
The Censorship Notification merely states the publication “promotes, [i]ncites or advocates disorder or the violation of state or federal law.” The alleged reason for censorship is broad as the term “advocates disorder” is clearly a separate and unique term from “violation of state or federal law.” While each can occur in unison, they may also be mutually exclusive. The Notification fails to provide such information. The Notification also fails to provide specific references to the alleged offending material. MIM(P) without such information is not given reasonable notice of the reason for censorship and is denied the opportunity to make an informed appeal.
It is clear prison authorities “officials can withhold only literature specifically advocating violence.” See Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 814 F.2d 1252, 1257 (8th Cir. 1987). Federal courts have found that the advocacy of violence must be clear and not part of commentary or opinion which does not direct such activities. See
Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F. Supp. 2d 964, 973 (W.D. Wis. 2008).
Please note we are requesting a copy of any and all records relating to all issues of any publication produced or distributed by MIM(P) which has censored by the Missouri Department of Corrections, to include date of censorship, issue identifying information, and reason for censorship.
As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide specific notice, we have reviewed the publication and it does not meet the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.
We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and the publication be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.
Please take notice that failure to sufficiently identify the alleged objectionable material and specific references to its location in the publication, as required by long standing and valid case law, will subject the Missouri Department of Corrections to potential legal actions to enforce our rights.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Office of Publication Review
1601 West Jefferson Street
Mail Code 481
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Re: Request Appeal of Under Lock & Key July/August 2018 Issue 63
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because of alleged content in violation of DO 914.07, section 1.2.3. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable. We object to such failure to clearly state with specificity the location and content of the alleged objectionable material.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, the notice, without page references, does not meet the scrutiny required by clearly established federal case law. A more definite statement of the objectionable content is required. This letter serves as our demand for such a more definitive statement.
It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, this constitutes direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law. This is further supported by the censorship of ULK issues 61and 62 under the same pretext.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”
The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
09/12/2018
PA department of Corrections denies appeal
Show Text
Mailing Date of this Decision: September 12, 2018
RE: Under Lock and Key, July/August 2018, #63
This is to notify you that your appeal is late and is dismissed on that basis. As such, it violates Department policy for the reason previously stated.
North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221
Re: Request Appeal of Under Lock & Key May/June 2018 Issue 62
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice), dated August 13, 2018, for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because of alleged content in violation of policy D.0109(f). However, the addendum references a violation of section (h) and specifies the offending material as being on page 2. The notice states page 2 “has verbiage that may incite distributive behavior.” Distributive behavior is not a violation of policy D.0109.
A careful review of page 2 of the publication shows no content which remotely meets the alleged objection set forth in the notice. Further, the content of page 2 does not meet any definition of objectionable content as defined by any portion of policy D.0109.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue July/August 2018 Issue 63
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your August 9, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content “advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9.”
The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
