Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

couldn't put up a proper argument because I wasn't able to read or even scan through the material before I appealed.

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

30 June 2015

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 43 & 44

Dear Ms. Bostic,

This letter is to request:
1) That you honor my request for a review of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 43, which I wrote you about thirty (30) days ago.
2) That you review the most recent decision to censor Under Lock & Key No. 44, per my letter below.

On 27 June 2015, a letter arrived for MIM Distributors, from the Publication Review Committee Chair Fay Lassiter notifying them of the disapproval of issue 44 (May/June 2015) of the newsletter Under Lock & Key. The letter gives the reason of “code I”, citing page 8 for the reason of “depicts correctional staff in a negative manner.” The article in question reports on physical abuse prisoners in Ohio faced at the hands of correctional officers.

As I'm sure you are aware, the state is prohibited from censoring the media for the reason that said media is critical of the state's actions or policies. That is the primary purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the institution of a free press. Therefore, it would be a violation of Federal law for your department to follow through with this censorship.

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

June 3, 2015

RE: Impounding of Power and the Struggle for Aztlan at Mayo Correctional Institution

Dear Ms. Morrison,

This letter is in response to a notification we recently received from Mayo Correctional Institution dated 5/15/2015 regarding the impounding of A BOOK we mailed to Mr. XXX. The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the magazines delivered to Mr. XXX.

The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable.

The Mayo C.I notice states about this book: "It is not conducive to the rehabilitation of inmates." The reasons cited for this are:

pg. 143 - crime photos - riots/gang violence
p. 143 is the first page of "Section 3: Why Revolutionary Proletarian Nationalism?" There are no crime photos.

pg 188-193 inciteful

These pages contain a review of the book Youth, Identity, Power. This is an academic book and our discussion of the content.

pg 99-107 inciteful


These pages come from articles titled "Padillas: Our Red Guards" and "Barrios Wrapped in Razor Wire". These are history articles about organizations and events.

For both of the above we are going to have to insist on some information about what specifically in these pages is “inciteful.” There is nothing illegal or against prison policy in this book.

Pg 65, 138, 142, 182, 190, 213 - photos/artwork inflammatory or encourages group disruption
The art on page 65, for instance, has nothing to do with group disruption. It is a picture of a Mexican man and woman and a car. Behind them is a skull with a military hat on it. What is encouraging group disruption or inflammatory about this?

Page 138 does not have any artwork or photos on it.

Page 142 has art that is a political commentary about the border with Mexico. Again, there is nothing about group disruption. It is a political statement about the U.S.-Mexico border and immigration.

Page 190 has art depicting Mexican history. There is nothing related to gangs in that art, nor is there any depiction of riots. And certainly no crime photos.

Page 213 has artwork depicting women from all around the world and celebrating the strength of women. Again nothing that could be construed as encouraging disruption.

This is a history book. It provides facts about various events in the history of both Mexico and the U.S. By this very loose definition of "inciteful" we conclude that the Assistant Warden, Mr. Jeffcoat, who signed the censorship notification, is violating the legal standard set by the Supreme Court Thornburgh ruling.

There is nothing in this publication that meets the criteria listed for censorship of publications. It may be the case that those reviewing this publication disagreed with the perspective presented, but the rejection of publications that one finds disagreeable is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, which your department is bound to uphold. The reasons given for denial of these publications does not pass the standard set by Thornburgh for censoring mail to prisoners.

I am requesting that you allow Mr. XXX to receive this impounded book.