pell
procunier
argued
decided
june
together
procunier
corrections
director
hillery
et
also
appeal
four
california
prison
inmates
three
professional
journalists
brought
suit
district
challenging
constitutionality
regulation
california
department
corrections
manual
provides
ress
media
interviews
specific
individual
inmates
permitted
provision
promulgated
following
violent
prison
episode
correction
authorities
attributed
least
part
former
policy
free
interviews
resulted
relatively
small
number
inmates
gaining
disproportionate
notoriety
influence
among
fellow
inmates
district
granted
inmate
appellees
motion
summary
judgment
holding
insofar
prohibited
inmates
communication
journalists
unconstitutionally
infringed
inmates
first
fourteenth
amendment
freedoms
granted
motion
dismiss
respect
claims
media
appellants
holding
rights
infringed
view
otherwise
available
rights
enter
state
institutions
interview
inmates
random
even
broader
access
afforded
prisoners
ruling
respect
inmate
appellees
prison
officials
journalists
appealed
held
light
alternative
channels
communication
open
inmate
appellees
constitute
violation
rights
free
speech
pp
prison
inmate
retains
first
amendment
rights
inconsistent
status
prisoner
legitimate
penological
objectives
corrections
system
restrictions
inmates
free
speech
rights
must
balanced
state
legitimate
interest
confining
prisoners
deter
crime
protect
society
quarantining
criminal
offenders
period
rehabilitative
procedures
applied
maintain
internal
security
penal
institutions
pp
alternative
means
communication
remain
open
inmates
correspond
mail
persons
including
media
representatives
procunier
martinez
rights
visitation
family
clergy
attorneys
friends
prior
acquaintance
unrestricted
opportunity
communicate
press
public
prison
visitors
pp
rights
media
appellants
first
fourteenth
amendments
infringed
deny
press
access
information
available
general
public
newsmen
california
policy
free
visit
maximum
security
minimum
security
sections
california
penal
institutions
speak
inmates
may
encounter
unlike
members
general
public
also
free
interview
inmates
selected
random
first
amendment
guarantee
press
constitutional
right
special
access
information
available
public
generally
branzburg
hayes
pp
stewart
delivered
opinion
burger
white
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
part
powell
joined
powell
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
post
douglas
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
post
herman
schwartz
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
alvin
bronstein
melvin
wulf
john
murphy
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
appellees
appellants
briefs
evelle
younger
attorney
general
jack
winkler
chief
assistant
attorney
general
edward
assistant
attorney
general
jean
bordon
deputy
attorney
general
stanley
bass
argued
cause
appellees
brief
jack
greenberg
charles
stephen
fn
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
joseph
califano
charles
wilson
richard
cooper
daniel
paul
james
rodgers
robert
lobdell
washington
post
et
glen
clover
robert
king
houston
chronicle
publishing
reuben
lawrence
gunnels
filed
brief
chicago
tribune
amicus
curiae
cases
justice
stewart
delivered
opinion
cases
judgment
district
northern
district
california
plaintiffs
district
four
california
prison
inmates
booker
hillery
john
larry
spain
bobby
bly
michael
shane
guile
three
professional
journalists
eve
pell
betty
segal
paul
jacobs
defendants
raymond
procunier
director
california
department
corrections
several
subordinate
officers
department
plaintiffs
brought
suit
challenge
constitutionality
first
fourteenth
amendments
california
department
corrections
manual
provides
ress
media
interviews
specific
individual
inmates
permitted
sought
injunctive
declaratory
relief
section
promulgated
defendant
procunier
authority
vested
california
penal
code
applied
uniformly
throughout
state
penal
system
prohibit
interviews
press
representatives
individual
inmates
specifically
name
request
interview
accordance
convened
hear
case
facts
undisputed
pell
segal
jacobs
requested
permission
appropriate
corrections
officials
interview
inmates
spain
bly
guile
respectively
addition
editors
certain
periodical
requested
permission
visit
inmate
hillery
discuss
possibility
publishing
certain
writings
interview
concerning
conditions
prison
pursuant
requests
denied
plaintiffs
thereupon
sued
enjoin
continued
enforcement
regulation
inmate
plaintiffs
contended
violates
rights
free
speech
first
fourteenth
amendments
similarly
media
plaintiffs
asserted
limitation
regulation
places
newsgathering
activity
unconstitutionally
infringes
freedom
press
guaranteed
first
fourteenth
amendments
district
granted
inmate
plaintiffs
motion
summary
judgment
holding
insofar
prohibited
inmates
communication
journalists
unconstitutionally
infringed
first
fourteenth
amendment
freedoms
respect
claims
media
plaintiffs
granted
defendants
motion
dismiss
noted
ven
stood
today
ruling
inmates
constitutional
rights
violated
press
given
freedom
enter
california
institutions
interview
random
concluded
even
broader
access
afforded
prisoners
today
ruling
sufficiently
protects
whatever
rights
press
may
respect
interviews
inmates
supp
corrections
director
procunier
defendants
appeal
judgment
district
infringes
inmate
plaintiffs
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
media
plaintiffs
appeal
rejection
claims
noted
probable
jurisdiction
appeals
consolidated
cases
oral
argument
inmate
plaintiffs
claim
prohibiting
participation
communication
newsmen
members
general
public
violates
right
free
speech
first
fourteenth
amendments
although
constitutional
right
free
speech
never
thought
embrace
right
require
journalist
citizen
listen
person
views
let
alone
right
require
publisher
publish
views
newspaper
see
avins
rutgers
state
university
new
jersey
chicago
joint
board
clothing
workers
chicago
tribune
associates
aldrich
times
mirror
proceed
upon
hypothesis
circumstances
right
free
speech
includes
right
communicate
person
views
willing
listener
including
willing
representative
press
purpose
publication
willing
publisher
start
familiar
proposition
awful
incarceration
brings
necessary
withdrawal
limitation
many
privileges
rights
retraction
justified
considerations
underlying
penal
system
price
johnston
see
also
cruz
beto
first
amendment
context
corollary
principle
prison
inmate
retains
first
amendment
rights
inconsistent
status
prisoner
legitimate
penological
objectives
corrections
system
thus
challenges
prison
restrictions
asserted
inhibit
first
amendment
interests
must
analyzed
terms
legitimate
policies
goals
corrections
system
whose
custody
care
prisoner
committed
accordance
due
process
law
important
function
corrections
system
deterrence
crime
premise
confining
criminal
offenders
facility
isolated
rest
society
condition
people
presumably
find
undesirable
others
deterred
committing
additional
criminal
offenses
isolation
course
also
serves
protective
function
quarantining
criminal
offenders
given
period
time
hoped
rehabilitative
processes
corrections
system
work
correct
offender
demonstrated
criminal
proclivity
thus
since
offenders
eventually
return
society
another
paramount
objective
corrections
system
rehabilitation
committed
custody
finally
central
corrections
goals
institutional
consideration
internal
security
within
corrections
facilities
light
legitimate
penal
objectives
must
assess
challenges
prison
regulations
based
asserted
constitutional
rights
prisoners
regulation
challenged
clearly
restricts
one
manner
communication
prison
inmates
members
general
public
beyond
prison
walls
merely
state
problem
resolve
said
refusal
corrections
authorities
permit
inmate
temporarily
leave
prison
order
communicate
persons
outside
yet
one
sensibly
contend
constitution
requires
authorities
give
even
individualized
consideration
requests
cf
zemel
rusk
order
properly
evaluate
constitutionality
think
regulation
considered
isolation
must
viewed
light
alternative
means
communication
permitted
regulations
persons
outside
prison
recognize
may
particular
qualities
inherent
sustained
debate
discussion
questioning
existence
alternatives
extinguis
altogether
constitutional
interest
part
appellees
particular
form
access
kleindienst
mandel
regard
available
alternative
means
communication
relevant
factor
case
called
upon
balance
first
amendment
rights
legitimate
governmental
interests
ibid
one
alternative
available
california
prison
inmates
communication
mail
although
prison
regulations
recently
called
censorship
statements
inter
alia
unduly
complain
magnify
grievances
express
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
deemed
defamatory
otherwise
inappropriate
recently
held
department
regulations
authorized
censorship
prisoner
mail
far
broader
legitimate
interest
penal
administration
demands
accordingly
affirmed
district
judgment
invalidating
regulations
procunier
martinez
addition
held
interest
prisoners
correspondents
uncensored
communication
letter
grounded
first
amendment
plainly
liberty
interest
within
meaning
fourteenth
amendment
even
though
qualified
necessity
circumstance
imprisonment
accordingly
concluded
decision
censor
withhold
delivery
particular
letter
must
accompanied
minimal
procedural
safeguards
thus
clear
medium
written
correspondence
affords
inmates
open
substantially
unimpeded
channel
communication
persons
outside
prison
including
representatives
news
media
moreover
visitation
policy
california
corrections
department
seal
inmate
personal
contact
outside
prison
inmates
permitted
receive
limited
visits
members
families
clergy
attorneys
friends
prior
acquaintance
selection
categories
visitors
based
director
professional
judgment
visits
aid
rehabilitation
inmate
compromising
legitimate
objectives
corrections
system
case
selection
based
anticipated
content
communication
inmate
prospective
visitor
member
press
fell
within
categories
suggestion
permitted
visit
inmate
importantly
however
inmates
unrestricted
opportunity
communicate
press
member
public
families
friends
clergy
attorneys
permitted
visit
prison
thus
provides
another
alternative
avenue
communication
prison
inmates
persons
outside
prison
find
availability
alternatives
unimpressive
submitted
justification
governmental
restriction
personal
communication
among
members
general
public
recognized
however
relationship
state
prisoners
state
officers
supervise
confinement
far
intimate
state
private
citizen
internal
problems
state
prisons
involve
issues
peculiarly
within
state
authority
expertise
preiser
rodriguez
procunier
martinez
supra
find
legitimate
governmental
interest
justify
substantial
restrictions
imposed
written
communication
inmates
however
question
involves
entry
people
prisons
communication
inmates
obvious
institutional
considerations
security
related
administrative
problems
well
accepted
legitimate
policy
objectives
corrections
system
require
limitation
placed
visitations
long
reasonable
effective
means
communication
remain
open
discrimination
terms
content
involved
believe
drawing
lines
prison
officials
must
accorded
latitude
cruz
beto
number
contexts
held
reasonable
time
place
manner
regulations
communicative
activity
may
necessary
significant
governmental
interests
permitted
grayned
city
rockford
cox
new
hampshire
poulos
new
hampshire
cox
louisiana
adderley
florida
nature
place
pattern
normal
activities
dictate
kinds
regulations
time
place
manner
reasonable
grayned
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
normal
activity
prison
committed
involuntary
confinement
isolation
large
numbers
people
demonstrated
capacity
violence
necessarily
requires
considerable
attention
devoted
maintenance
security
although
permit
prison
officials
prohibit
expression
communication
prison
inmates
security
considerations
sufficiently
paramount
administration
prison
justify
imposition
restrictions
entry
outsiders
prison
contact
inmates
case
restriction
takes
form
limiting
visitations
individuals
either
personal
professional
relationship
inmate
family
friends
prior
acquaintance
legal
counsel
clergy
judgment
state
corrections
officials
visitation
policy
permit
inmates
personal
contact
persons
aid
rehabilitation
keeping
visitations
manageable
level
compromise
institutional
security
considerations
peculiarly
within
province
professional
expertise
corrections
officials
absence
substantial
evidence
record
indicate
officials
exaggerated
response
considerations
courts
ordinarily
defer
expert
judgment
matters
courts
course
abdicate
constitutional
responsibility
delineate
protect
fundamental
liberties
issue
involves
regulation
limiting
one
several
means
communication
inmate
institutional
objectives
furthered
regulation
measure
judicial
deference
owed
corrections
officials
attempt
serve
interests
relevant
gauging
validity
regulation
accordingly
light
alternative
channels
communication
open
prison
inmates
say
record
case
restriction
one
manner
prisoners
communicate
persons
outside
prison
unconstitutional
long
restriction
operates
neutral
fashion
without
regard
content
expression
falls
within
appropriate
rules
regulations
prisoners
necessarily
subject
cruz
beto
supra
abridge
first
amendment
freedoms
retained
prison
inmates
ii
media
plaintiffs
ask
us
hold
limitation
press
interviews
imposed
violates
freedom
press
guaranteed
first
fourteenth
amendments
contend
irrespective
first
amendment
liberties
may
may
retained
prison
inmates
members
press
constitutional
right
interview
inmate
willing
speak
absence
individualized
determination
particular
interview
might
create
clear
present
danger
prison
security
substantial
interest
served
corrections
system
regard
media
plaintiffs
claim
impairment
freedom
publish
california
imposes
restrictions
may
published
prisons
prison
inmates
officers
administer
prisons
instead
rely
right
gather
news
without
governmental
interference
media
plaintiffs
assert
includes
right
access
sources
regarded
newsworthy
information
note
outset
regulation
part
attempt
state
conceal
conditions
prisons
frustrate
press
investigation
reporting
conditions
indeed
record
demonstrates
current
corrections
policy
press
general
public
accorded
full
opportunities
observe
prison
conditions
department
corrections
regularly
conducts
public
tours
prisons
benefit
interested
citizens
addition
newsmen
permitted
visit
maximum
security
minimum
security
sections
institutions
stop
speak
subject
inmates
might
encounter
security
considerations
permit
corrections
personnel
step
aside
permit
interviews
confidential
apart
general
access
parts
institutions
newsmen
also
permitted
enter
prisons
interview
inmates
selected
random
corrections
officials
token
newsman
wishes
write
story
particular
prison
program
permitted
sit
group
meetings
interview
inmate
participants
short
members
press
enjoy
access
california
prisons
available
members
public
sole
limitation
newsgathering
california
prisons
prohibition
interviews
individual
inmates
specifically
designated
representatives
press
restriction
recent
vintage
imposed
response
violent
episode
department
corrections
felt
least
partially
attributable
former
policy
respect
interviews
prior
promulgation
every
journalist
virtually
free
access
interview
individual
inmate
might
wish
members
press
accorded
privilege
members
general
public
benefit
unrestricted
visitation
policy
thus
promulgation
impose
discrimination
press
access
merely
eliminated
special
privilege
formerly
given
representatives
press
members
public
generally
practice
found
policy
effect
prior
promulgation
resulted
press
attention
concentrated
relatively
small
number
inmates
result
became
virtual
public
figures
within
prison
society
gained
disproportionate
degree
notoriety
influence
among
fellow
inmates
notoriety
influence
inmates
often
became
source
severe
disciplinary
problems
example
extensive
press
attention
inmate
espoused
practice
prison
regulations
encouraged
inmates
follow
suit
thus
eroding
institutions
ability
deal
effectively
inmates
generally
finally
words
district
august
uring
escape
attempt
san
quentin
three
staff
members
two
inmates
killed
viewed
officials
climax
mounting
disciplinary
problems
caused
part
liberal
posture
regard
press
interviews
august
adopted
mitigate
problem
background
consider
media
plaintiffs
claims
first
fourteenth
amendments
constitutional
guarantee
free
press
assures
maintenance
political
system
open
society
time
hill
secures
paramount
public
interest
free
flow
information
people
concerning
public
officials
garrison
louisiana
see
also
new
york
times
sullivan
token
ny
system
prior
restraints
expression
comes
bearing
heavy
presumption
constitutional
validity
new
york
times
organization
better
austin
keefe
bantam
books
sullivan
near
minnesota
ex
rel
olson
correlatively
first
fourteenth
amendments
also
protect
right
public
receive
information
ideas
published
kleindienst
mandel
stanley
georgia
branzburg
hayes
went
acknowledged
news
gathering
without
first
amendment
protections
without
protection
seeking
news
freedom
press
eviscerated
branzburg
held
first
fourteenth
amendments
abridged
requiring
reporters
disclose
identity
confidential
sources
grand
jury
information
needed
course
criminal
investigation
perceive
basis
holding
public
interest
law
enforcement
ensuring
effective
grand
jury
proceedings
insufficient
override
consequential
uncertain
burden
news
gathering
said
result
insisting
reporters
like
citizens
respond
relevant
questions
put
course
valid
grand
jury
investigation
criminal
trial
case
media
plaintiffs
contend
constitutes
governmental
interference
newsgathering
activities
neither
consequential
uncertain
substantial
governmental
interest
shown
justify
denial
press
access
specifically
designated
prison
inmates
particularly
media
plaintiffs
assert
despite
substantial
access
california
prisons
inmates
accorded
representatives
press
access
broader
accorded
members
public
generally
interviews
specifically
designated
inmates
effective
superior
method
newsgathering
curtailment
amounts
unconstitutional
state
interference
free
press
agree
generally
held
first
amendment
guarantee
press
constitutional
right
special
access
information
available
public
generally
despite
fact
news
gathering
may
hampered
press
regularly
excluded
grand
jury
proceedings
conferences
meetings
official
bodies
gathering
executive
session
meetings
private
organizations
newsmen
constitutional
right
access
scenes
crime
disaster
general
public
excluded
branzburg
hayes
supra
similarly
newsmen
constitutional
right
access
prisons
inmates
beyond
afforded
general
public
reasons
stated
reverse
district
judgment
infringes
freedom
speech
prison
inmates
affirm
judgment
regulation
abridge
constitutional
right
free
press
accordingly
judgment
vacated
cases
remanded
district
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
periodical
since
ceased
publication
editors
join
media
plaintiffs
litigation
question
whether
interview
hillery
magazine
editors
denied
authority
department
corrections
interview
policy
permits
basis
meetings
inmate
authors
publishers
defendants
contend
interview
denied
officials
made
individualized
determination
meeting
fact
necessary
effectuate
publication
hillery
works
hillery
hand
notes
editors
indicated
prison
officials
also
wished
discuss
conditions
prison
order
publish
article
subject
thus
appears
denial
likelihood
based
least
part
policy
appear
codified
otherwise
expressly
articulated
generally
applicable
rule
regulation
statement
visiting
privileges
san
quentin
state
penitentiary
indicates
visitors
must
approved
corrections
officials
must
either
members
family
friends
long
standing
also
permits
visits
attorneys
clients
although
nothing
said
statement
visits
members
clergy
dispute
among
parties
practice
department
corrections
permit
visits
also
disagreement
among
parties
visitation
policy
generally
applied
department
throughout
state
corrections
system
suggested
inmate
appellees
use
mails
alternative
means
communication
may
effective
case
prisoners
inarticulate
even
illiterate
indication
however
four
inmates
suffer
either
disabilities
indeed
record
affirmatively
shows
two
inmates
published
writers
although
complaint
filed
class
action
plaintiffs
never
moved
district
certify
case
class
action
required
fed
rules
civ
proc
thus
short
answer
inmates
contention
neither
finding
district
support
record
finding
alternative
channels
communication
effective
means
inmate
appellees
express
persons
outside
prison
even
respect
inmates
may
literate
articulate
however
suggestion
corrections
officials
permit
inmates
seek
aid
fellow
inmates
family
friends
visit
commit
thoughts
writing
communication
individuals
general
public
cf
johnson
avery
merely
inmates
may
need
assistance
utilize
one
alternative
channels
make
ineffective
alternative
unless
course
state
prohibits
inmate
receiving
assistance
inmates
argue
restricting
access
press
representatives
unconstitutionally
burdens
first
fourteenth
amendment
right
petition
government
redress
grievances
communication
press
inmates
contend
provides
effective
opportunity
communicate
grievances
channel
public
opinion
legislative
executive
branches
government
think
however
alternative
means
communication
press
available
prisoners
together
substantial
access
prisons
california
accords
press
members
public
see
infra
satisfies
whatever
right
inmates
may
petition
government
press
also
note
california
accords
prison
inmates
substantial
opportunities
petition
executive
legislative
judicial
branches
government
directly
section
california
penal
code
permits
inmate
correspond
confidentially
public
officeholder
various
rules
promulgated
department
corrections
explicitly
permit
inmate
correspond
governor
elected
state
federal
official
appointed
head
state
federal
agency
similarly
california
acted
assure
prisoners
right
petition
judicial
relief
see
jordan
cal
van
geldern
cal
harrell
cal
section
california
government
code
also
makes
prison
officials
liable
intentional
interference
right
prisoner
obtain
judicial
relief
confinement
policy
reflects
recognition
conditions
nation
prisons
matter
newsworthy
great
public
importance
chief
justice
commented
continue
brush
rug
problems
found
guilty
subject
criminal
sentence
melancholy
truth
taken
tragic
prison
outbreaks
past
three
years
focus
widespread
public
attention
problem
burger
options
limited
vill
rev
along
lines
chief
justice
correctly
observed
want
prisoners
change
public
attitudes
toward
prisoners
must
change
visit
prisons
make
zealot
prison
reform
burger
bell
tolls
reprinted
record
supp
contended
california
permits
family
friends
attorneys
clergy
visit
inmates
limit
visitations
press
member
general
public
personal
professional
relationship
inmate
permitted
enter
prison
name
inmate
like
engage
discourse
thus
press
granted
access
respect
prison
inmates
accorded
member
general
public
indeed
noted
text
aggregate
access
press
california
prisons
inmates
substantially
greater
general
public
chief
justice
warren
put
matter
writing
zemel
rusk
restrictions
action
clothed
ingenious
argument
garb
decreased
data
flow
example
prohibition
unauthorized
entry
white
house
diminishes
citizen
opportunities
gather
information
might
find
relevant
opinion
way
country
run
make
entry
white
house
first
amendment
right
right
speak
publish
carry
unrestrained
right
gather
information
justice
powell
concurring
part
dissenting
part
concern
constitutionality
first
fourteenth
amendments
regulation
california
department
corrections
prohibits
personal
interviews
prison
inmates
representatives
news
media
regulation
substantially
identical
bureau
prisons
policy
statement
whose
validity
issue
saxbe
washington
post
post
reasons
stated
dissenting
opinion
case
post
hold
california
absolute
ban
interviews
impermissibly
restrains
ability
press
perform
constitutionally
established
function
informing
people
conduct
government
accordingly
dissent
judgment
california
differ
washington
post
case
one
significant
respect
constitutionality
interview
ban
challenged
prisoners
well
newsmen
thus
appeals
unlike
washington
post
raise
question
whether
inmates
individuals
personal
constitutional
right
demand
interviews
willing
reporters
agree
majority
join
part
opinion
justice
douglas
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
cases
involve
constitutionality
first
fourteenth
amendments
prison
regulations
limiting
communication
state
federal
prisoners
press
nos
judgment
district
northern
district
california
supp
suit
brought
four
california
state
prisoners
three
professional
journalists
challenging
constitutionality
california
department
corrections
manual
imposes
absolute
ban
media
interviews
individually
designated
inmates
upheld
prisoners
claim
regulation
violative
right
free
speech
director
california
department
corrections
appeals
injunction
enforcement
regulation
journalists
claim
noted
media
plaintiffs
herein
amicus
curiae
argue
violative
prisoners
first
amendment
rights
also
press
disagrees
journalists
appeal
rejection
claim
involves
media
challenge
federal
bureau
prisons
policy
statement
prohibits
press
interviews
particular
federal
prisoner
medium
security
maximum
security
facility
district
held
total
ban
violative
first
amendment
free
press
guarantee
enjoined
enforcement
supp
appeals
affirmed
sub
nom
washington
post
kleindienst
app
majority
notes
policies
federal
bureau
prisons
regarding
visitations
prison
inmates
differ
significantly
california
policies
review
analyzing
prisoner
challenge
california
absolute
ban
media
interviews
individual
inmates
start
proposition
foremost
among
bill
rights
prisoners
country
whether
state
federal
detention
first
amendment
prisoners
still
persons
entitled
constitutional
rights
unless
liberty
constitutionally
curtailed
procedures
satisfy
requirements
due
process
free
speech
press
within
meaning
first
amendment
judgment
among
privileges
immunities
citizens
procunier
martinez
douglas
concurring
judgment
premise
agree
california
grossly
overbroad
restrictions
prisoner
speech
constitutionally
permissible
agree
prison
discipline
inmate
safety
rehabilitation
must
considered
evaluating
first
amendment
rights
prison
context
first
amendment
principles
must
always
applied
light
special
characteristics
environment
tinker
des
moines
school
district
healy
james
prisoners
contend
prison
officials
powerless
impose
reasonable
limitations
visits
media
necessary
particularized
circumstances
maintain
security
discipline
good
order
prisoners
contend
courts
found
penal
interests
used
justification
absolute
ban
media
interviews
road
prophylactic
rules
area
free
expression
suspect
precision
regulation
must
touchstone
area
closely
touching
precious
freedoms
naacp
button
see
cantwell
connecticut
true
prisoners
left
means
expression
visits
relatives
communication
mail
state
hardly
defend
overly
broad
restriction
expression
demonstrating
eliminated
expression
completely
justice
black
said
accept
brother
harlan
view
dissent
abridgment
speech
press
violate
first
amendment
methods
communication
left
open
reason
abridgment
strikes
par
holding
governmental
suppression
newspaper
city
violate
first
amendment
continue
radio
television
stations
first
amendment
freedoms
validly
taken
away
degrees
one
fell
swoop
nlrb
fruit
packers
concurring
opinion
agree
state
interest
order
prison
discipline
justify
total
ban
media
interviews
individually
designated
inmate
matter
whatsoever
coarse
attempt
regulation
patently
unconstitutional
area
recision
regulation
must
touchstone
naacp
button
supra
elfbrandt
russell
affirm
district
judgment
regard
ii
nos
media
claim
state
federal
prison
regulations
flatly
prohibiting
interviews
inmates
selected
press
impinge
upon
first
amendment
free
press
guarantee
directly
protected
federal
infringement
protected
state
infringement
fourteenth
amendment
rejecting
claim
notes
ban
access
prisoners
applies
well
general
public
holds
newsmen
constitutional
right
access
prisons
inmates
beyond
afforded
general
public
ante
dealing
free
press
guarantee
important
note
interest
protects
possessed
media
enjoining
enforcement
federal
regulation
judge
gesell
vindicate
right
washington
post
rather
right
people
true
sovereign
constitutional
scheme
govern
informed
manner
press
preferred
position
constitutional
scheme
enable
make
money
set
newsmen
apart
favored
class
bring
fulfillment
public
right
know
right
know
crucial
governing
powers
people
branzburg
hayes
douglas
dissenting
prisons
like
public
institutions
ultimately
responsibility
populace
crime
like
economy
health
education
defense
like
matter
grave
concern
society
people
right
necessity
know
incidence
crime
effectiveness
system
designed
control
given
day
approximately
people
authority
federal
state
local
prison
systems
cost
taxpayers
one
billion
dollars
annually
individuals
sentenced
prison
return
society
public
interest
informed
prisons
thus
paramount
prisoners
free
speech
claim
one
asserts
free
press
right
authorities
powerless
impose
reasonable
regulations
time
place
manner
interviews
effectuate
prison
discipline
order
issue
whether
complete
ban
interviews
inmates
selected
press
goes
beyond
necessary
protection
interests
infringes
upon
cherished
right
free
press
appeals
noted
hile
question
concerns
voiced
bureau
prisons
legitimate
interests
merit
protection
must
agree
district
individually
total
justify
sweeping
absolute
ban
bureau
chosen
impose
app
thus
enough
note
press
institution
constitution
specifically
selected
play
important
role
discussion
public
affairs
denied
access
prisons
denied
public
generally
prohibition
visits
public
practical
effect
upon
right
know
beyond
achieved
exclusion
press
average
citizen
unlikely
inform
operation
prison
system
requesting
interview
particular
inmate
prior
relationship
likely
instead
society
values
free
press
rely
upon
media
information
indeed
ironic
justify
exclusion
press
noting
government
gone
beyond
press
expanded
exclusion
include
public
government
deny
press
access
public
institutions
prohibit
interviews
governmental
employees
find
constitutional
footing
expanding
ban
deny
access
everyone
agree
courts
absolute
ban
press
interviews
specifically
designated
federal
inmates
far
broader
necessary
protect
legitimate
governmental
interests
unconstitutional
infringement
public
right
know
protected
free
press
guarantee
first
amendment
affirm
judgment
regard
since
basic
right
guaranteed
state
infringement
application
first
amendment
fourteenth
california
absolute
ban
fare
better
reverse
district
rejection
claim
opinion
applies
also
saxbe
et
al
washington
post
et
post
subcommittee
courts
civil
liberties
administration
justice
house
committee
judiciary
report
inspection
federal
facilities
leavenworth
penitentiary
medical
center
federal
prisoners
comm
print
mills
alabama
chief
justice
hughes
stromberg
california
stated
first
amendment
applicable
reason
due
process
clause
fourteenth
become
customary
rest
broader
foundation
entire
fourteenth
amendment
free
speech
press
within
meaning
first
amendment
judgment
one
privileges
immunities
citizens
procunier
martinez
douglas
concurring
judgment