Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Indiana Department of Correction
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
PO Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838-1111

October 25, 2019

To whom it may concern,

We recently became aware that Mr. XX has appealed the rejection of the magazine MIM Theory #6 “The Stalin Issue” which we sent to him 8/19/2019. Your institution rejected this magazine as “used.” But we are not sending Mr. XX used magazines. The magazine may appear a bit old, as it was published over 20 years ago. It has certainly aged a bit, but it is not used. We are sending Mr. XX new magazines, therefore there should be no reason for the rejection.

We also note that on 9/11/2019 the response to Mr. XX’s Informal Complaint #2 (Request for Interview) was responded to by “A Waller” with this note: “I am still looking into this, having some difficulty getting a hold of the vendor.” We, the vendor, were never contacted by anyone in the Indiana DOC regarding this publication denial. Please feel free to reach out to us directly for further clarification.

As this matter has now been clarified, please supply Mr XX with the new magazine we sent. A new copy of this magazine was mailed to Mr. XX on October 15 for your convenience.

pg1,4 Peace, Unity, Growth, Internationalism, Independence
pg3 United Front for Peace in Prisons Statement of Principles
p5-8 Importance of Independent Institutions
p12-13 Revolutionary Organizing amongst mounting protests
pgs 14 CDCR Creating Volatile conditions
Pgs 18-19 NC Prisoners

Louisiana Department of Corrections
Headquarters
Post Office Box 94304
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9304


Re: Blanket Censorship of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Notice of Rejection for publications sent to prisoner XXX, dated August 29, 2019. We only recently received this notice. The notice is insufficient as a matter of law to comply with our First Amendment rights to communicate with persons of our choice, including prisoners.

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. You must provide additional information which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. Specifically, you must identify all publications from MIM(P) which have been censored in a manner to reasonably provide notice as to the identification of the censored material. Further, you must provide specific references for each censored publication that you find objectionable and form the basis for your censorship. The Notice provides none of the information required by the courts and caselaw to afford an opportunity for meaningful review. This letter serves as notice of the Louisiana Department of Corrections failure to comply with these legal mandates.

We further note that the Notice provides no means for a sender, publisher or distributor to challenge the rejection or censorship of mail. Courts in the United States have long held a First Amendment right exists to protect the right of correspondence with prisoners. As previously noted, a publisher or distributor must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any censorship. As the Notice fails to provide any such remedy it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. We demand the Louisiana Department of Corrections immediately afford us the exercise of our rights under the Constitution. Any failure to act within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this letter may result in appropriate legal action being taken against the Louisiana Department of Corrections.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors