Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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

23 February 2014

RE: Censorship of various magazines/newspapers at Taylor CI

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to the censorship of a package sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#XXXXXX) at Taylor Correctional Institution by MIM Distributors. This package was recently returned to sender with receipt stating a number of unfounded justifications for censorship.

1. ?Excess of 15 pages includes photos? - It is not clear what the issue is here, but the contents were magazines and newspapers.
2. ?Nude photos which reveal genitalia, buttocks, or female breast.? - There are no such photos as should be confirmed if Sgt. H. Smith photocopied the materials as indicated on the return receipt.
3. ?Routine mail delivered in padded enveloped.? - Envelope was not padded, it was a standards USPS priority mail envelope.
4. ?Otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person.? - The decision in Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 stated that, "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." None of the notes provided at the bottom of the receipt substantiate this general assertion.
5. ?Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption.? - None of the materials promote violence by prisoners, and the argument above applies to this point as well.

MIM Distributors was not given a notice of impoundment or provided an opportunity to appeal this decision. I am requesting that this censorship be reviewed and notice provided to MIM Distributors that this literature will be delivered to prisoners at Taylor CI without interference in the future.

Sincerely,

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

23 March 2014

RE: Censorship of various magazines/newspapers at Taylor CI

Dear Ms. Morrison,

Thank you for responding to my recent inquiries. However, your response regarding the subject above confused me. Are you saying that Sgt. H. Smith used the wrong form to censor MIM Distributor's mail and therefore it is outside your authority to remedy this? MIM Distributors is not responsible for the mistakes of FDOC staff and the violation of their rights to free speech and association should not be justified by such mistakes. This responsibility falls on the Florida Department of Corrections. According to the form sent, Sgt. Smith should have made copies of the materials censored that you should have access to in order to investigate this matter.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


p.s. I find it ironic that you upheld the censorship of Under Lock & Key #36 because it had an ?inflammatory tone,? when the article cited to justify censorship was literally about discouraging prisoners from starting fires as a form of protest and encouraging them to study better organizing strategies to address their conditions. I have much personal experience in these matters and I can state with certainty that your department's denial of prisoners' mail from the outside does much more to incite violence in Florida prisons. Your department is legally bound to protect the safety of prisoners and staff and prohibited from enforcing political agendas.

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

13 April 2014

RE: Censorship of various magazines/newspapers at Taylor CI

Dear Ms. Morrison,

I've received your March 31 letter as well as Brenda Phillips letter of March 24. You both uphold the use of 33-210.101 to censor the publications sent by MIM Distributors, when that code clearly states in the first sentence, ?The provisions of this section shall apply to routine mail. Routine mail is all inmate mail, except legal mail (see Rule 33-210.102, F.A.C.), privileged mail (see Rule 33-210.103, F.A.C.), and publications (see Rule 33-501.401, F.A.C.).? The package in question that was censored contained magazines and newspapers,

Please refer to Florida Administrative Code 33-501.401 Admissible Reading Material, which clearly states ?this section shall apply to all publications, including books, newspapers, magazines, journals and diaries...? and that any impoundment of such material falls under the ultimate authority of the Literature Review Committee. Ms. Morrison, your refusal to take responsibility for this censorship is in clear violation of state rules. It doesn't matter if the staff at Taylor used the wrong form. The State of Florida is still bound to respect the First Amendment rights of MIM Distributors and the prisoners that they send mail to.


Sincerely,

Publication Review Committee
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 E. 2603 Road
Sheridan, IL 60551

March 25, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x

Dear PRC,

This letter is a follow-up to our letter from February 6, 2014 regarding the illegal censorship if mail to Mr. x, a prisoner housed at Sheridan Correctional Center. My February 6 letter outlined the illegal censorship of several pieces of mail sent to Mr. from MIM Distributors.

Since my last letter to your office, there has been another alarming incident of censorship at Sheridan Correctional Center. MIM Distriburotis sent Mr. a letter on February 7, via First Class mail with USPS, less than one ounce, with no labels on the envelope. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened. The only reason given for this censorship is "not allowed" hand written on the envelope. We were not sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Your Administrative Code Title 20, Part 525 Rights and Privileges, Section 525.140 Incoming Mail at point d) that "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband."
and at point h), "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of the decision."

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the letter in question.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the sender, under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

We would appreciate if you took any necessary, appropriate and advisable measure (such as internal investigations, proper employees? training and similar) to stop this illegal ban on all mail coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of mail on an individual basis.

Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden Marcus Hardy