MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
Post Office Box 21787
Columbia, SC 29210
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons booklet
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Notice to Withhold Incoming Correspondence (notice) for the above referenced publication addressed to the above referenced prisoner. The notice states that the publication is being reviewed for objectionable material.
A review of the contents for the impounded publication clearly shows the material provided is akin to many college level courses on world history relating to socialism and communism. There is no objectionable material or material which violates any South Carolina DOC policy contained within the publication.
As there is no objectionable material, we must demand you deliver the publication to Mr. XXXXXX forthwith.
Should you improperly censor the publication we demand you provide us with specific reasons for such censorship and specific citations to the objectionable content as required by numerous federal court decisions. 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).
Michigan Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
206 E. Michigan Ave.
Grandview Plaza
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue (Notice Failed to State Issue Number)
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Notice of Package/Mail Rejection form from your agency. The form fails to state with specificity which issue is being censored and the specific content which is objectionable. Failure to provide this information renders such censorship de facto unappealable.
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).
As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
Until such time as the Michigan Department of Corrections provides the constitutionally mandated information to provide adequate notice of the specific reasons for censorship and the citations to the allegedly objectionable material, a violation of our constitutional rights under the First Amendment will continue.
additional information on reasons for censorship
Show Text
Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.
Other: Detrimental to safety and security of the facility. Disrupts order. Promotes organization and leadership.
Signed: C. Hurle
11/12/2017
MIM(Prisons) protests censorship
Show Text
November 12, 2017
Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above reference prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on boilerplate language. Such language does not provide the specificity required to sustain such censorship and does not allow us a reasonable opportunity to appeal such improper censorship The form fails to provide specific information as to the objectionable content, such as page numbers or quoted portions of the publication. The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit.
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).
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.
As of 11/11/2017, MIM(Prisons) has not been notified of the censorship. Although we have received other censor notifications from Washington.
Additionally, we believe the material in question is not subject to U.S. copyright law. It was published in 1972 in the People's Republic of China, a socialist country which was working to eradicate intellectual property and private property.
contains security threat group information and threat to penological object on overthrowing the government on page 3, 11, and 13. A lot of articles that other offenders from other facilities.
Washington DOC
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
File No. JAO-0817-154
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to XXX. The notice states that page 31113 contains reference to advocacy of violence or overthrow of authority and gang symbols or other unauthorized group symbols which may be reasonably thought to precipitate violence. We will operate under the assumption that this references pages 3, 11, and 13. A review of the pages cited show that no such information is shown. The notice also states, “A lot of articles that other offenders from other facilities.” It is unclear what alleged objectionable content this references and it is clearly not an objective or valid reason to support censorship.
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).
A review of the referenced pages of Issue 57 (3, 11, 13) show that no such language or representations are contained on any of those pages which advocate for an overthrow of authority or contain any gang or unauthorized group symbols that would lead a reasonable person to believe they incite violence. As none of the referenced pages include any objectionable material, the notice is vague as to the objectionable content. Page 3 is general knowledge and contains no images or objectionable content.
Page 11 contains images from a news website and promotes a call for peace, no content is objectionable. Page 13 contains commentary and a single image of a hand with the index and middle finger held up in a “V” symbol. This “V” symbol is commonly known as a symbol of victory, and contains a specific reference “I contribute to P.E.A.C.E.” a clear reference to peaceful activity, not violence, none of the material on this page is objectionable. The “V” symbol is not a symbol of any gang or unauthorized group; it was displayed proximately by former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, a law and order stalwart.
As none of the listed pages reference any objectionable content the notice is vague. Further, the notice to vague page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
We require the decision to censor issue 57 be vacated and delivered to XXX.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
11/11/2017
MIM(Prisons) protests censorship
Show Text
September 11, 2017
Washington DOC
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
File No. JAO-0817-154
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to Mr. Rodriquez. The notice states that page 31113 contains reference to advocacy of violence or overthrow of authority and gang symbols or other unauthorized group symbols which may be reasonably thought to precipitate violence. We will operate under the assumption that this references pages 3, 11, and 13. A review of the pages cited show that no such information is shown. The notice also states, “A lot of articles that other offenders from other facilities.” It is unclear what alleged objectionable content this references and it is clearly not an objective or valid reason to support censorship.
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).
A review of the referenced pages of Issue 57 (3, 11, 13) show that no such language or representations are contained on any of those pages which advocate for an overthrow of authority or contain any gang or unauthorized group symbols that would lead a reasonable person to believe they incite violence. As none of the referenced pages include any objectionable material, the notice is vague as to the objectionable content. Page 3 is general knowledge and contains no images or objectionable content.
Page 11 contains images from a news website and promotes a call for peace, no content is objectionable. Page 13 contains commentary and a single image of a hand with the index and middle finger held up in a “V” symbol. This “V” symbol is commonly known as a symbol of victory, and contains a specific reference “I contribute to P.E.A.C.E.” a clear reference to peaceful activity, not violence, none of the material on this page is objectionable. The “V” symbol is not a symbol of any gang or unauthorized group; it was displayed proximately by former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, a law and order stalwart.
As none of the listed pages reference any objectionable content the notice is vague. Further, the notice to vague page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
We require the decision to censor issue 57 be vacated and delivered to XXX.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Facts reviewed: On grievance dated 7/13/17 offender claims that the May/June 2017 issue of MIM Distributors, No. 56 was banned but feels that he should be allowed to have it since he is interested in all radical political movements.
Counselor Dennis responded "According to the Publication Review Committee MIM Distributors May/June 2017 No. 56 is on the banned list."
Grievance Officer finds that according to the PRC Chairperson the publicaiton was reviewed and determined to be on the banne dlist. Offenders' political beliefs are not a factor in PRC determinations. Offender received and signed a Publication Review Determination and Course of Action DOC0212 form on 7/13/17. It appears that proper protocol was followed.
Recommendation: Based upon a total review of all available information it is the recomendation of this Grievance Officer that this offender's grievance be DENIED due to offender's publicaiton being on the banned list.
Grievance officer's name: David Mansfield, CCII
Chief Administrator Officer's Response 7/21/2017:
"I Concur"
09/06/2017
MIM(Prisons) appealed censorship
Show Text
September 6, 2017
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 56
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a notice of censorship from XX concerning the issue of Under Lock Key (ULK), issue 56. We are the distributors of ULK and did not receive notice of the censorship of this issue at any time.
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 provide an original reason for censorship of issue 56 of ULK, which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
Illinois Administrative Code title 20, section 525.140(h) requires written notification to the sender when mail is censored or denied.
In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 56 be vacated and the issue be delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.
You may respond to the address listed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
10/25/2017
Publication receipt and course of action
Show Text
Notification of publication denial because publication:
Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or itm ight facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.
Article drugs in prison, unity amongst prisoners.
Promotes leadership and organization detrimental to safety and security of the facility.
