Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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

31 January 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35

To Ms. Bostic,

On January 22, 2014 MIM Distributors received notice of censorship of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, issue number 35. Once again, the reason given was ?A code? and page 2 was cited. Once again, I am requesting an independent review of this decision.

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 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 Distributors mail to prisoners held by the state of North Carolina.


Please respond,

[Grievance Statement:]You are receiving this grievance because materials -- either the newsletter Under Lock & Key or other political books or propaganda -- that were mailed to me were censored in whole or in part by the prison authorities. What mail are you withholding, and why? I insist that you tell me what regulation, statue or law my mail violates. Detail specifically how my mail violates the rules. The First Amendment protects prisoners' right to receive and keep reading material like books and magazines. In 1989, the Supreme Court required prisons to prove that banning material was necessary to meet government interests in prison order, security and rehabilitation before they could violate a prisoner's legal rights. This standard, developed in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), gave prisoners fairly strong protection of their access to reading materials.

[What remedy would resolve your grievance?]What mail are you withholding, and why? I insist that you tell me what regulation, statue or law my mail violates. Detail specifically how my mail violates the rules.

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

1 November 2013

RE: Request for review of censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 34

To Ms. Bostic,

This letter is to request a review of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 34 and address the continued disregard for the rights of MIM Distributors to communicate and associate with prisoners held by the state of North Carolina.

On 29 October 2013 I received a letter to publisher notifying MIM Distributors of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 34 dated 21 October 2013. (This can be confirmed by visiting www.usps.com and entering the number on the certified mail slip.) I am writing in response to this notice to request an independent review of this censorship within 15 days. Upon reviewing this decision, I am once again requesting a justification for this censorship if it is upheld. The letter to publisher received merely states ?page 2? and ?A Code? as the reasons for censorship. As previously pointed out, you are well aware that page 2 of Under Lock & Key is the same in every issue and that this serves as a thinly veiled attempt to institute a blanket ban on ULK. This is further substantiated by the fact that you have censored every issue of ULK for over 3 years without providing an explanation for the reasons they were not allowed despite my appeals of every instance. As to the content of page 2, it explicitly states that MIM discourages prisoners from breaking the law or rules at their institution, which is in complete contradiction to the claim that it violates ?A Code.?

This letter also serves to document that my appeal to the censorship of ULK No. 33, dated 6 September 2013, was never responded to by your office, despite being sent well within your 15 day requirement.


Please respond,

This is a newspaper/newsletter. Disapproval is a violation of my fredom of the press rights and freedom of speech rights protected by the United States Constitution Admendment 1. On page one of this notice, the disapproval reason stated is D.0109(f), but on page two, nothing is written in the D.0109(f) section stating why or for what reason the publication was disapproved. Therefore I cannot write an appropriate argument/appeal.