A Legal Tool for Exercising Creators' Religious Rights in Prison

[Rev.Cambeul]

From: https://creativityalliance.com/prison-ministries/prison-letters/banning-religious-materials

Banning Creativity's Religious Materials
A LEGAL TOOL FOR EXERCISING OUR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
Adapted from the Women's Frontier Newsletter – WCOTC 1997

The Church of Creativity's religious materials are sent to a number of Brothers and Sisters behind JOG bars, and at times it is censored by prison authorities. The Church of Creativity will always actively fight against this infringement of our religious rights under the Fourteenth and First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and as such, we will always defend our right to have our literature read by anyone and everyone who wants to have access to it. One of our Brothers who has been very active in this area has prepared the following excellent form letter for use by any Creators or Comrades whenever Creativity's religious materials are banned by prison officials. We encourage other Comrades to utilize this form letter, print it out, and use in whatever way best suits your needs if you are experiencing this type of discrimination. Naturally, substitute the facts of your own case in the body of the letter (your name, prison officials name, etc) By utilizing all tools at our disposal, we will strike another blow for justice and the right for pro-White literature to be freely and openly read by our brethren. We thank our Brother for giving Creators and Comrades a concrete and powerful way to fight this oppression and tyranny so that our people will never be denied THE FACTS!

LETTER TO CENSOR:
FROM: Your name and address
TO: Name and address of prison

RE: Censorship and subsequent ban of the Church of Creativity's religious materials

Dear (Prison Official's Name)

Recently, I was contacted by (John Doe), who is an inmate at your prison. Mr. Doe is a member of my congregation of the Church of Creativity, and he claims that an official (or officials) at your prison have banned Creativity's religious materials from entering the prison. Accordingly, I am exercising my rights, as a Minister of Creativity, to a written appeal pursuant to Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401. 109 S.Ct. 1874 (1989), of the aforementioned determination.

First, all persons, incarcerated or otherwise, have the absolute right to whatever religious beliefs they wish. The Church of Creativity's religious books, documents, images, letters and communication advocating Creativity are protected under the First Amendment as religious materials. In Peterson vs Wilmur Communications Inc, the District Court of Wisconsin (2002) declared Creativity to be a religion under U.S. law.

In Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972), the Supreme Court noted that even in prisons "reasonable opportunities must be afforded to all prisoners to exercise the religious freedom guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments without fear of penalty." The receipt of religious literature is another means of exercising religion in prison. Many prisons have attempted to censor material that is racist or racial in nature. Usually the explanations offered were that these types of publications either appeal to racial hostility or make claims of racial superiority. Prison officials, therefore, argue that these materials are somehow inherently threatening to the security of the prison. Courts that have considered this question have uniformly refused to uphold bans of religious publications that sweep so broadly.

Because of the First Amendment right to believe whatever one wishes, "prison officials have no legitimate interest in excluding religious books...merely because they contain racist views." McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 638 (9th cir. 1987).
Second, wardens may not prohibit a specific publication from ever entering the prison, and may not establish a list of prohibited publications. See Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748 (5th cir. 1978); Murphy v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 814 F.2d 1252 (8th cir. 1987).

Courts have determined that prisons must base a rejection on a very specific portion that is "so inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause or encourage violence within the prison. See Murphy v. Missouri Department of Corrections. Supra. Moreover, the Supreme Court also set forth procedural safeguards to ensure that prison officials would not arbitrarily exclude acceptable material. These rules provide that in making the decision whether to allow a certain publication, the warden could not reject it because its contents was "religious, philosophical, political, social or sexual, or because its content was unpopular or repugnant." (Bold emphasis added). Thornburgh v. Abbott, Id. at 1877-78.

Aside from the prisoner's right to receive religious materials, there is my right, as the writer/publisher/supplier, to correspond with Mr. Doe, which you have infringed upon in arbitrarily banning Creativity's religious materials. It is important for me to have my newsletter reach the people whom I send it to. The prison censors must take into account that I have a well-documented right to correspond, via my newsletter, with prisoners in your institution.

I hope you will reconsider the current ban of the Church of Creativity's religious materials. This would help to avoid further litigation.

Sincerely,
Reverend L. T.,
State Representative
Church of Creativity