Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Publication Review Committee
16830 So. Broadway St.
P.O. Box 112
Joliet, IL 60434

April 11, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

On August 25, 2012 MIM Distributors mailed a single envelope containing 3 form letters to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center. The contents of this envelope was a form letter explaining the services of the prisoner support organization MIM(Prisons), a letter inquiring about the prisoner's plans after his release from prison, and a letter inviting him to participate in a study course. The envelope and contents was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned From Facility" written on the envelope. It was not accompanied with any indication as to why this mail was banned, or what policy even allows mail to be banned in IDOC. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Dating back to 2008, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 9: Psychology (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no legal or formal notification given to the sender as to why the mail is being banned, and the sender is not being afforded an opportunity to appeal the censorship.

Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:

1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.

2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."

Additionally, also from your own Administrative Code, at 525.230, "b) A publication may not be rejected solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, or sexual or because its contents are unpopular or repugnant. A publication that may be rejected includes, but is not limited to, a publication or portion thereof that meets one of the following criteria:"

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 publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), 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.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties
Warden

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

12 March 2013

RE: Statewide Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 30

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have received many notices, from multiple institutions in the Missouri DOC that state that Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb, Issue #30 has been censored by the department. This letter is to request an independent review of this decision.

The reason stated is "IS13-1.2 Censorship Procedure III C-2 a.," which refers to "promotes, incites or advocates violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law, or advocates, facilitates or otherwise presents a risk of lawlessness?" Under Lock & Key is very explicit in discouraging prisoners from using violence or from violating the law. The notification cites pages 1 and 9 of the newsletter. While there is a reference to violence on both pages, neither could be construed to be encouraging or promoting violence.

The first page contains a review of a book on economics and an article about the shooting that occurred in Newtown, CT. The artwork for the latter does depict Uncle Sam firing a gun, but this was a critique of the use of violence in this country and clearly not encouraging prisoners to follow suit.

Page 9 contains portions of an article about segregation in schools, which has no mention of violence or lawbreaking, not to mention advocating it. This page also contains the beginnings of an article on censorship, coincidentally, that compares statements about violence made by the founding fathers to materials that were deemed "dangerous" by the Wisconsin DOC. Perhaps the reviewer in Missouri wanted to prove the writer incorrect that these statements by the founding fathers would not be censored by prison employees. But they were put forth to prove a point in a legal argument, which is the type of arguments ULK consistently promotes, not as a means to make any argument for violence as is evident by reading the article.

It seems the reviewer mistakenly saw mentions of violence as promoting it, rather than reading the articles to see that they both served as a critique. I hope you agree and allow the prisoners held throughout Missouri to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key Issue 30. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter.

Sincerely,

Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301

April 13, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI

Dear Mr. Geer,

Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.

MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.

➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:

(a) Rejected Mail:

(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), 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.

➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.

➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. The practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
SRCI Warden

The ULK 27 that came with MIM Theory 13, the mail room is playing stupid on it.

Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301

April 13, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI

Dear Mr. Geer,

Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.

MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.

➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:

(a) Rejected Mail:

(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), 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.

➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.

➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. The practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
SRCI Warden

B. Rose
Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kansas Street
Menard, IL 62259

April 11, 2013

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key March/April 2013 No. 30

Dear Publication Review Officer Rose,

On April 1, 2013, we were notified that Menard Correctional Center is reviewing the above-named publication for potential censorship. This letter is to object to the potential censorship, and to petition you to allow this publication to be received by our subscribers in Menard Correctional Institution.

I believe you will find upon a close inspection of the publication that your concerns of "disruption" and "safety and security" are unsubstantiated. The articles in Under Lock & Key only advocate legal means of combatting illegal conditions of confinement. Please be aware that several Illinois institutions have allowed subscribers to receive this issue of ULK, such as Dixon Correctional Center, Hill Correctional Center, Stateville Correctional Center, among others.

If you do decide to censor this publication, please notify us as to the specific reasoning (laws or policies which it violates), as well as your justification for why Menard Correctional Center has a different standard of publication review than the above-mentioned facilities.

Also, please send a copy of the mail rules for Menard Correctional Center and any other mail rules you think would be helpful for a distributor of books and magazines to know. You can send this information to the address below.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Publication Review Committee
Lawrence Correctional Center
10930 Lawrence Rd
Sumner, IL 62466-4915

April 11, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a single sheet of paper to the above-named prisoner held at Lawrence Correctional Center. The contents of this paper was a list of mail that we had sent to Mr. XXX, and a brief letter asking him if he received it. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender" stamped on the envelope. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Dating back to 2011, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. We have documentation that two (2) letters inquiring about receipt of mail have been returned in this same way, and a letter we sent to a prisoner informing him/her of legal means of appealing censorship was also censored in the same exact way. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.

Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:

1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.

2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."

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 publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), 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.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties