text:
FIRE > PELL et al. v. PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al.
First Amendment Library
PELL et al. v. PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al., 417 U.S. 817 (1974)
Argued:
Decided:
Decided by:
Burger Court, 1973
Legal Principle at Issue:
Whether a California prison regulation barring media interviews with specific individual inmates infringed on the First Amendments' guarantees of speech and of the press.
Vacated and remanded. Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.
RESOURCES & COMMENTARY
Advocates for Respondent
John T. Murphy
Advocates for Petitioner
Herman Schwartz
Potter Stewart Byron White Warren Burger Harry Blackmun William Rehnquist
Concurring Opinion
No opinions found
Dissenting Opinion
William Douglas Thurgood Marshall William Brennan Lewis Powell
417 U.S. 817 (1974)
PELL ET AL.
PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 16-17, 1974.
Decided June 24, 1974.[*]
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
*818 Herman Schwartz argued the cause for appellants in No. 73-918. With him on the briefs were Alvin J. Bronstein and Melvin L. Wulf.
John T. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellees in No. 73-918 and for appellants in No. 73-754. With him on the briefs were Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, and Jean M. Bordon, Deputy *819 Attorney General. Stanley A. Bass argued the cause for appellees in No. 73-754. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg and Charles Stephen Ralston.[†]
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases are here on cross-appeals from the judgment of a three-judge District Court in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in the District Court were four California prison inmates—Booker T. Hillery, Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile—and three professional journalists—Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs. The defendants were Raymond K. Procunier, Director of the California Department of Corrections, and several subordinate officers in that department. The plaintiffs brought the suit to challenge the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of § 415.071 of the California Department of Corrections Manual, which provides that "[p]ress and other media interviews with specific individual inmates will not be permitted." They sought both injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Section 415.071 was promulgated by defendant Procunier under authority vested in him by § 5058 of the California Penal Code and is applied uniformly throughout the State's penal system to prohibit face-to-face interviews between press representatives and individual inmates whom they specifically name and request to interview. *820 In accordance with 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, a three-judge court was convened to hear the case.[1]
The facts are undisputed. Pell, Segal, and Jacobs each requested permission from the appropriate corrections officials to interview inmates Spain, Bly, and Guile, respectively. In addition, the editors of a certain periodical requested permission to visit inmate Hillery to discuss the possibility of their publishing certain of his writings and to interview him concerning conditions at the prison.[2] Pursuant to § 415.071, these requests were all denied.[3] The plaintiffs thereupon sued to enjoin the continued enforcement of this regulation. The inmate plaintiffs contended that § 415.071 violates their rights of free speech *821 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Similarly, the media plaintiffs asserted that the limitation that this regulation places on their newsgathering activity unconstitutionally infringes the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The District Court granted the inmate plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that § 415.071, insofar as it prohibited inmates from having face-to-face communication with journalists, unconstitutionally infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment freedoms. With respect to the claims of the media plaintiffs, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court noted that "[e]ven under § 415.071 as it stood before today's ruling [that inmates' constitutional rights were violated by § 415.071] the press was given the freedom to enter the California institutions and interview at random," and concluded "that the even broader access afforded prisoners by today's ruling sufficiently protects whatever rights the press may have with respect to interviews with inmates." 364 F. Supp. 196, 200.
In No. 73-754, Corrections Director Procunier and the other defendants appeal from the judgment of the District Court that § 415.071 infringes the inmate plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In No. 73-918, the media plaintiffs appeal the court's rejection of their claims. We noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals and consolidated the cases for oral argument. 414 U. S. 1127, 1155.
In No. 73-754, the inmate plaintiffs claim that § 415.071, by prohibiting their participation in face-to-face communication with newsmen and other members of the general public, violates their right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although the constitutional right of free speech has never been *822 thought to embrace a right to require a journalist or any other citizen to listen to a person's views, let alone a right to require a publisher to publish those views in his newspaper, see Avins v. Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, 385 F. 2d 151 (CA3 1967); Chicago Joint Board, Clothing Workers v. Chicago Tribune Co., 435 F. 2d 470 (CA7 1970); Associates & Aldrich Co. v. Times Mirror Co., 440 F. 2d 133 (CA9 1971), we proceed upon the hypothesis that under some circumstances the right of free speech includes a right to communicate a person's views to any willing listener, including a willing representative of the press for the purpose of publication by a willing publisher.
We start with the familiar proposition that "[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 285 (1948). See also Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 321 (1972). In the First Amendment context a corollary of this principle is that a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. Thus, challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due process of law.
An important function of the corrections system is the deterrence of crime. The premise is that by confining criminal offenders in a facility where they are isolated from the rest of society, a condition that most people presumably find undesirable, they and others will be deterred from committing additional criminal offenses. This *823 isolation, of course, also serves a protective function by quarantining criminal offenders for a given period of time while, it is hoped, the rehabilitative processes of the corrections system work to correct the offender's demonstrated criminal proclivity. Thus, since most offenders will eventually return to society, another paramount objective of the corrections system is the rehabilitation of those committed to its custody. Finally, central to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves. It is in the light of these legitimate penal objectives that a court must assess challenges to prison regulations based on asserted constitutional rights of prisoners.
The regulation challenged here clearly restricts one manner of communication between prison inmates and members of the general public beyond the prison walls. But this is merely to state the problem, not to resolve it. For the same could be said of a refusal by corrections authorities to permit an inmate temporarily to leave the prison in order to communicate with persons outside. Yet no one could sensibly contend that the Constitution requires the authorities to give even individualized consideration to such requests. Cf. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965). In order properly to evaluate the constitutionality of § 415.071, we think that the regulation cannot be considered in isolation but must be viewed in the light of the alternative means of communication permitted under the regulations with persons outside the prison. We recognize that there "may be particular qualities inherent in sustained, face-to-face debate, discussion and questioning," and "that [the] existence of other alternatives [does not] extinguis[h] altogether any constitutional interest on the part of the appellees in this particular form of access." Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 *824 U. S. 753, 765 (1972). But we regard the available "alternative means of [communication as] a relevant factor" in a case such as this where "we [are] called upon to balance First Amendment rights against [legitimate] governmental . . . interests." Ibid.
One such alternative available to California prison inmates is communication by mail. Although prison regulations, until recently, called for the censorship of statements, inter alia, that "unduly complain" or "magnify grievances," that express "inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views," or that were deemed "defamatory" or "otherwise inappropriate," we recently held that "the Department's regulations authorized censorship of prisoner mail far broader than any legitimate interest of penal administration demands," and accordingly affirmed a district court judgment invalidating the regulations. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 416 (1974). In addition, we held that "[t]he interest of prisoners and their correspondents in uncensored communication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a `liberty' interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment even though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment." Accordingly, we concluded that any "decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimal procedural safeguards." Id., at 418, 417. Thus, it is clear that the medium of written correspondence affords inmates an open and substantially unimpeded channel for communication with persons outside the prison, including representatives of the news media.
Moreover, the visitation policy of the California Corrections Department does not seal the inmate off from personal contact with those outside the prison. Inmates are permitted to receive limited visits from members *825 of their families, the clergy, their attorneys, and friends of prior acquaintance.[4] The selection of these categories of visitors is based on the Director's professional judgment that such visits will aid in the rehabilitation of the inmate while not compromising the other legitimate objectives of the corrections system. This is not a case in which the selection is based on the anticipated content of the communication between the inmate and the prospective visitor. If a member of the press fell within any of these categories, there is no suggestion that he would not be permitted to visit with the inmate. More importantly, however, inmates have an unrestricted opportunity to communicate with the press or any other member of the public through their families, friends, clergy, or attorneys who are permitted to visit them at the prison. Thus, this provides another alternative avenue of communication between prison inmates and persons outside the prison.
We would find the availability of such alternatives unimpressive if they were submitted as justification for governmental restriction of personal communication among members of the general public. We have recognized, however, that "[t]he relationship of state prisoners and the state officers who supervise their confinement is far more intimate than that of a State and a private *826 citizen," and that the "internal problems of state prisons involve issues . . . peculiarly within state authority and expertise." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 492 (1973).
In Procunier v. Martinez, supra, we could find no legitimate governmental interest to justify the substantial restrictions that had there been imposed on written communication by inmates. When, however, the question involves the entry of people into the prisons for face-to-face communication with inmates, it is obvious that institutional considerations, such as security and related administrative problems, as well as the accepted and legitimate policy objectives of the corrections system itself, require that some limitation be placed on such visitations. So long as reasonable and effective means of communication remain open and no discrimination in terms of content is involved, we believe that, in drawing such lines, "prison officials must be accorded latitude." Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S., at 321.
In a number of contexts, we have held "that reasonable `time, place and manner' regulations [of communicative activity] may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 115 (1972); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 575-576 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, 398 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554-555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 46-48 (1966). "The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable." Grayned, supra, at 116 (internal quotation marks omitted). The "normal activity" to which a prison is committed—the involuntary confinement and isolation of large numbers of people, some of whom have demonstrated a capacity for violence—necessarily requires *827 that considerable attention be devoted to the maintenance of security. Although they would not permit prison officials to prohibit all expression or communication by prison inmates, security considerations are sufficiently paramount in the administration of the prison to justify the imposition of some restrictions on the entry of outsiders into the prison for face-to-face contact with inmates.
In this case the restriction takes the form of limiting visitations to individuals who have either a personal or professional relationship to the inmate—family, friends of prior acquaintance, legal counsel, and clergy. In the judgment of the state corrections officials, this visitation policy will permit inmates to have personal contact with those persons who will aid in their rehabilitation, while keeping visitations at a manageable level that will not compromise institutional security. Such considerations are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters. Courts cannot, of course, abdicate their constitutional responsibility to delineate and protect fundamental liberties. But when the issue involves a regulation limiting one of several means of communication by an inmate, the institutional objectives furthered by that regulation and the measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials in their attempt to serve those interests are relevant in gauging the validity of the regulation.
Accordingly, in light of the alternative channels of communication that are open to prison inmates,[5] we *828 cannot say on the record in this case that this restriction on one manner in which prisoners can communicate with persons outside of prison is unconstitutional. So long as this restriction operates in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression, it falls within the "appropriate rules and regulations" to which "prisoners necessarily are subject," Cruz v. Beto, supra, at 321, and does not abridge any First Amendment freedoms retained by prison inmates.[6]
*829 II
In No. 73-918, the media plaintiffs ask us to hold that the limitation on press interviews imposed by § 415.071 violates the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They contend that, irrespective of what First Amendment liberties may or may not be retained by prison inmates, members of the press have a constitutional right to interview any inmate who is willing to speak with them, in the absence of an individualized determination that the particular interview might create a clear and present danger to prison security or to some other substantial interest served by the corrections system. In this regard, the media plaintiffs do not claim any impairment of their freedom to publish, for California imposes no restrictions on what may be published about its prisons, the prison inmates, or the officers who administer the prisons. Instead, they rely on their right to gather news without governmental interference, which the media plaintiffs assert includes a right *830 of access to the sources of what is regarded as newsworthy information.
We note at the outset that this regulation is not part of an attempt by the State to conceal the conditions in its prisons or to frustrate the press' investigation and reporting of those conditions. Indeed, the record demonstrates that, under current corrections policy, both the press and the general public are accorded full opportunities to observe prison conditions.[7] The Department of Corrections regularly conducts public tours through the prisons for the benefit of interested citizens. In addition, newsmen are permitted to visit both the maximum security and minimum security sections of the institutions and to stop and speak about any subject to any inmates whom they might encounter. If security considerations permit, corrections personnel will step aside to permit such interviews to be confidential. Apart from general access to all parts of the institutions, newsmen are also permitted to enter the prisons to interview inmates selected at random by the corrections officials. By the same token, if a newsman wishes to write a story on a particular prison program, he is permitted to sit in on group meetings and to interview the inmate participants. In short, members *831 of the press enjoy access to California prisons that is not available to other members of the public.
The sole limitation on newsgathering in California prisons is the prohibition in § 415.071 of interviews with individual inmates specifically designated by representatives of the press. This restriction is of recent vintage, having been imposed in 1971 in response to a violent episode that the Department of Corrections felt was at least partially attributable to the former policy with respect to face-to-face prisoner-press interviews. Prior to the promulgation of § 415.071, every journalist had virtually free access to interview any individual inmate whom he might wish. Only members of the press were accorded this privilege; other members of the general public did not have the benefit of such an unrestricted visitation policy. Thus, the promulgation of § 415.071 did not impose a discrimination against press access, but merely eliminated a special privilege formerly given to representatives of the press vis-à-vis members of the public generally.[8]
In practice, it was found that the policy in effect prior to the promulgation of § 415.071 had resulted in press attention being concentrated on a relatively small number of inmates who, as a result, became virtual "public figures" within the prison society and gained a disproportionate degree of notoriety and influence among their *832 fellow inmates. Because of this notoriety and influence, these inmates often became the source of severe disciplinary problems. For example, extensive press attention to an inmate who espoused a practice of non-cooperation with prison regulations encouraged other inmates to follow suit, thus eroding the institutions' ability to deal effectively with the inmates generally. Finally, in the words of the District Court, on August 21, 1971, "[d]uring an escape attempt at San Quentin three staff members and two inmates were killed. This was viewed by the officials as the climax of mounting disciplinary problems caused, in part, by its liberal posture with regard to press interviews, and on August 23 § 415.071 was adopted to mitigate the problem." 364 F. Supp., at 198. It is against this background that we consider the media plaintiffs' claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The constitutional guarantee of a free press "assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society," Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 389 (1967), and secures "the paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials," Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 77 (1964). See also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964). By the same token, " `[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.' " New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 714 (1971); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (1971); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). Correlatively, the First and Fourteenth Amendments also protect the right of the public to receive such information and ideas as are published. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S., at 762-763; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969).
*833 In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972), the Court went further and acknowledged that "news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections," id., at 707, for "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated," id., at 681. In Branzburg the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments were not abridged by requiring reporters to disclose the identity of their confidential sources to a grand jury when that information was needed in the course of a good-faith criminal investigation. The Court there could "perceive no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings [was] insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial," id., at 690-691.
In this case, the media plaintiffs contend that § 415.071 constitutes governmental interference with their newsgathering activities that is neither consequential nor uncertain, and that no substantial governmental interest can be shown to justify the denial of press access to specifically designated prison inmates. More particularly, the media plaintiffs assert that, despite the substantial access to California prisons and their inmates accorded representatives of the press—access broader than is accorded members of the public generally—face-to-face interviews with specifically designated inmates is such an effective and superior method of newsgathering that its curtailment amounts to unconstitutional state interference with a free press. We do not agree.
"It has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. . . . Despite the fact that news gathering may *834 be hampered, the press is regularly excluded from grand jury proceedings, our own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies gathering in executive session, and the meetings of private organizations. Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded." Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, at 684-685. Similarly, newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments bar government from interfering in any way with a free press. The Constitution does not, however, require government to accord the press special access to information not shared by members of the public generally.[9] It is one thing to say that a journalist is free to seek out sources of information not available to members of the general public, that he is entitled to some constitutional protection of the confidentiality of such sources, cf. Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, and that government cannot restrain the publication of news emanating from such sources. Cf. New York Times Co. v. United States, supra. It is quite another thing to suggest that the Constitution imposes upon government the affirmative duty to make available to journalists sources of information not available to members of the public generally. That proposition finds no support in the words of the Constitution or in any decision *835 of this Court. Accordingly, since § 415.071 does not deny the press access to sources of information available to members of the general public, we hold that it does not abridge the protections that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee.
For the reasons stated, we reverse the District Court's judgment that § 415.071 infringes the freedom of speech of the prison inmates and affirm its judgment that that regulation does not abridge the constitutional right of a free press. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
These cross-appeals concern the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of a regulation of the California Department of Corrections that prohibits all personal interviews of prison inmates by representatives of the news media. This regulation is substantially identical to the United States Bureau of Prisons policy statement whose validity is at issue in Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., post, p. 843. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in that case, post, p. 850, I would hold that California's absolute ban against prisoner-press interviews impermissibly restrains the ability of the press to perform its constitutionally established function of informing the people on the conduct of their government. Accordingly, I dissent from the judgment of the Court.
The California cross-appeals differ from the Washington Post case in one significant respect. Here the constitutionality of the interview ban is challenged by prisoners as well as newsmen. Thus these appeals, unlike Washington Post, raise the question whether inmates as *836 individuals have a personal constitutional right to demand interviews with willing reporters. Because I agree with the majority that they do not, I join Part I of the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.[*]
These cases involve the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of prison regulations limiting communication between state and federal prisoners and the press. Nos. 73-754 and 73-918 are cross-appeals from the judgment of a three-judge District Court for the Northern District of California. 364 F. Supp. 196. Suit was brought in that court by four California state prisoners and three professional journalists challenging the constitutionality of California Department of Corrections Manual § 415.071 which imposes an absolute ban on media interviews with individually designated inmates.
The court upheld the prisoners' claim that this regulation is violative of their right of free speech, and, in No. 73-754, the Director of the California Department of Corrections appeals from the court's injunction against further enforcement of the regulation. As to the journalists' claim, the court noted: "The media plaintiffs herein and amicus curiae argue that § 415.071 is violative of not only the prisoners' First Amendment rights, but also the press'. The court disagrees." 364 F. Supp., at 199. In No. 73-918, the journalists appeal this rejection of their claim.
No. 73-1265 involves a media challenge to Federal Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 1220.1A, ¶ 4 (b) (6), which prohibits press interviews with any particular federal *837 prisoner in any medium security or maximum security facility. The District Court held the total ban violative of the First Amendment's free press guarantee and enjoined its enforcement. 357 F. Supp. 770. The Court of Appeals affirmed sub nom. Washington Post Co. v. Kleindienst, 161 U. S. App. D. C. 75, 494 F. 2d 994. As the majority notes, "[t]he policies of the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding visitations to prison inmates do not differ significantly from the California policies" here under review.
In analyzing the prisoner challenge to California's absolute ban on media interviews with individual inmates, I start with the proposition that "foremost among the Bill of Rights of prisoners in this country, whether under state or federal detention, is the First Amendment. Prisoners are still `persons' entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed by procedures that satisfy all the requirements of due process. . . . Free speech and press within the meaning of the First Amendment are, in my judgment, among the pre-eminent privileges and immunities of all citizens." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 428-429 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment). With that premise, I cannot agree with the Court that California's grossly overbroad restrictions on prisoner speech are constitutionally permissible. I agree that prison discipline, inmate safety, and rehabilitation must be considered in evaluating First Amendment rights in the prison context. First Amendment principles must always be applied "in light of the special characteristics of the . . . environment." Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 506; Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 180. But the prisoners here do not contend that prison officials are powerless to impose reasonable limitations on *838 visits by the media which are necessary in particularized circumstances to maintain security, discipline, and good order.
All that the prisoners contend, and all that the courts below found, is that these penal interests cannot be used as a justification for an absolute ban on media interviews because "[b]road prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. . . . Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms." NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438. And see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 311.
It is true that the prisoners are left with other means of expression such as visits by relatives and communication by mail. But the State can hardly defend an overly broad restriction on expression by demonstrating that it has not eliminated expression completely.
As Mr. Justice Black has said:
"I cannot accept my Brother HARLAN'S view [in dissent] that the abridgment of speech and press here does not violate the First Amendment because other methods of communication are left open. This reason for abridgment strikes me as being on a par with holding that governmental suppression of a newspaper in a city would not violate the First Amendment because there continue to be radio and television stations. First Amendment freedoms can no more validly be taken away by degrees than by one fell swoop." NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 79-80 (concurring opinion).
A State might decide that criticism of its affairs could be reduced by prohibiting all its employees from discussing governmental operations in interviews with the media, leaving criticism of the State to those with the time, energy, ability, and inclination to communicate *839 through the mails. The prohibition here is no less offensive to First Amendment principles; it flatly prohibits interview communication with the media on the government's penal operations by the only citizens with the best knowledge and real incentive to discuss them.
I agree with the court below that the State's interest in order and prison discipline cannot justify its total ban on all media interviews with any individually designated inmate on any matter whatsoever. Such a coarse attempt at regulation is patently unconstitutional in an area where "[p]recision of regulation must be the touchstone." NAACP v. Button, supra, at 438; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11, 18. I would affirm the District Court's judgment in this regard.
In Nos. 73-918 and 73-1265, the media claim that the state and federal prison regulations here, by flatly prohibiting interviews with inmates selected by the press, impinge upon the First Amendment's free press guarantee, directly protected against federal infringement and protected against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. In rejecting the claim, the Court notes that the ban on access to prisoners applies as well to the general public, and it holds that "newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public." Ante, at 834.
In dealing with the free press guarantee, it is important to note that the interest it protects is not possessed by the media themselves. In enjoining enforcement of the federal regulation in No. 73-1265, Judge Gesell did not vindicate any right of the Washington Post, but rather the right of the people, the true sovereign under our constitutional scheme, to govern in *840 an informed manner. "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the public's right to know. The right to know is crucial to the governing powers of the people." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 721 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting).
Prisons, like all other public institutions, are ultimately the responsibility of the populace. Crime, like the economy, health, education, defense, and the like, is a matter of grave concern in our society and people have the right and the necessity to know not only of the incidence of crime but of the effectiveness of the system designed to control it. "On any given day, approximately 1,500,000 people are under the authority of [federal, state and local prison] systems. The cost to taxpayers is over one billion dollars annually. Of those individuals sentenced to prison, 98% will return to society."[1] The public's interest in being informed about prisons is thus paramount.
As with the prisoners' free speech claim, no one asserts that the free press right is such that the authorities are powerless to impose reasonable regulations as to the time, place, and manner of interviews to effectuate prison discipline and order. The only issue here is whether the complete ban on interviews with inmates selected by the press goes beyond what is necessary for the protection of these interests and infringes upon our cherished right of a free press. As the Court of Appeals noted in No. 73-1265: "[W]hile we do not question that the concerns *841 voiced by the Bureau [of Prisons] are legitimate interests that merit protection, we must agree with the District Court that they do not, individually or in total, justify the sweeping absolute ban that the Bureau has chosen to impose." 161 U. S. App. D. C., at 86, 494 F. 2d, at 1005.
It is thus not enough to note that the press—the institution which "[t]he Constitution specifically selected. . . to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs"[2]—is denied no more access to the prisons than is denied the public generally. The prohibition of visits by the public has no practical effect upon their right to know beyond that achieved by the exclusion of the press. The average citizen is most unlikely to inform himself about the operation of the prison system by requesting an interview with a particular inmate with whom he has no prior relationship. He is likely instead, in a society which values a free press, to rely upon the media for information.
It is indeed ironic for the Court to justify the exclusion of the press by noting that the government has gone beyond the press and expanded the exclusion to include the public. Could the government deny the press access to all public institutions and prohibit interviews with all governmental employees? Could it find constitutional footing by expanding the ban to deny such access to everyone?
I agree with the courts below in No. 73-1265 that the absolute ban on press interviews with specifically designated federal inmates is far broader than is necessary to protect any legitimate governmental interests and is an unconstitutional infringement on the public's right to know protected by the free press guarantee of the First Amendment. I would affirm the judgment in this regard. *842 Since this basic right is guaranteed against state infringement by the application of the First Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth,[3] California's absolute ban can fare no better. I would reverse the District Court's rejection of this claim in No. 73-918.
[*] Together with No. 73-754, Procunier, Corrections Director v. Hillery et al., also on appeal from the same court.
[†] Briefs of amici curiae in No. 73-918 were filed by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Charles H. Wilson, Jr., Richard M. Cooper, Daniel P. S. Paul, James W. Rodgers, and Robert C. Lobdell for the Washington Post Co. et al., and by Glen E. Clover and Robert J. King for the Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. Don H. Reuben and Lawrence Gunnels filed a brief for the Chicago Tribune Co. as amicus curiae in both cases.
[1] This litigation was first initiated before a single judge and proceeded for nearly a year with the court's attention focused on the interview practice at San Quentin State Penitentiary, where all the inmate plaintiffs are confined, where the interviews sought by the media plaintiffs were to occur, and where all the defendants, except Mr. Procunier, are employed. After the matter was briefed and argued, the single judge preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of § 415.071. Only then did the defendants bring to the court's attention that § 415.071 was a regulation of statewide application. Thereafter a three-judge court was convened to pass on the constitutional validity of the regulation.
[2] The periodical has since ceased publication and its editors did not join the media plaintiffs in this litigation.
[3] There is some question as to whether the interview between Hillery and the magazine editors was denied under the authority of § 415.071. Department of Corrections interview policy permits, on a case-by-case basis, meetings between inmate authors and their publishers. The defendants contend that the interview was denied here because the officials made an individualized determination that the meeting was not in fact necessary to effectuate the publication of Hillery's works. Hillery, on the other hand, notes that the editors had indicated to the prison officials that they also wished to discuss with him the conditions in the prison in order to publish an article on that subject. Thus, it appears that the denial was in all likelihood based at least in part on § 415.071.
[4] This policy does not appear to be codified or otherwise expressly articulated in any generally applicable rule or regulation. The statement of visiting privileges for San Quentin State Penitentiary indicates that all visitors must be approved by the corrections officials and must be either "members of the family or friends of long standing." It also permits visits by attorneys to their clients. Although nothing is said in this statement about visits by members of the clergy, there is no dispute among the parties that the practice of the Department of Corrections is to permit such visits. There is also no disagreement among the parties that this visitation policy is generally applied by the Department throughout the state corrections system.
[5] It is suggested by the inmate appellees that the use of the mails as an alternative means of communication may not be effective in the case of prisoners who are inarticulate or even illiterate. There is no indication, however, that any of the four inmates before the Court suffer from either of these disabilities. Indeed, the record affirmatively shows that two of the inmates are published writers. Although the complaint was filed as a class action, the plaintiffs never moved the District Court to certify the case as a class action as required by Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 23 (b) (3) and (c). Thus, the short answer to the inmates' contention is that there is neither a finding by the District Court nor support in the record for a finding that the alternative channels of communication are not an effective means for the inmate appellees to express themselves to persons outside the prison.
Even with respect to inmates who may not be literate or articulate, however, there is no suggestion that the corrections officials would not permit such inmates to seek the aid of fellow inmates or of family and friends who visit them to commit their thoughts to writing for communication to individuals in the general public. Cf. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969). Merely because such inmates may need assistance to utilize one of the alternative channels does not make it an ineffective alternative, unless, of course, the State prohibits the inmate from receiving such assistance.
[6] The inmates argue that restricting their access to press representatives unconstitutionally burdens their First and Fourteenth Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Communication with the press, the inmates contend, provides them with their only effective opportunity to communicate their grievances, through the channel of public opinion, to the legislative and executive branches of the government. We think, however, that the alternative means of communication with the press that are available to prisoners, together with the substantial access to prisons that California accords the press and other members of the public, see infra, at 830-831, satisfies whatever right the inmates may have to petition the government through the press.
We also note that California accords prison inmates substantial opportunities to petition the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government directly. Section 2600 of the California Penal Code permits an inmate to correspond confidentially with any public officeholder. And various rules promulgated by the Department of Corrections explicitly permit an inmate to correspond with the Governor, any other elected state or federal official, and any appointed head of a state or federal agency. Similarly, California has acted to assure prisoners the right to petition for judicial relief. See, e. g., In re Jordan, 7 Cal. 3d 930, 500 P. 2d 873 (1972); In re Van Geldern, 5 Cal. 3d 832, 489 P. 2d 578 (1971); In re Harrell, 2 Cal. 3d 675, 470 P. 2d 640 (1970). Section 845.4 of the California Government Code also makes prison officials liable for intentional interference with the right of a prisoner to obtain judicial relief from his confinement.
[7] This policy reflects a recognition that the conditions in this Nation's prisons are a matter that is both newsworthy and of great public importance. AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE has commented, we cannot "continue . . . to brush under the rug the problems of those who are found guilty and subject to criminal sentence. . . . It is a melancholy truth that it has taken the tragic prison outbreaks of the past three years to focus widespread public attention on this problem." Burger, Our Options are Limited, 18 Vill. L. Rev. 165, 167 (1972). Along the same lines, THE CHIEF JUSTICE has correctly observed that "[i]f we want prisoners to change, public attitudes toward prisoners and ex-prisoners must change. . . . A visit to most prisons will make you a zealot for prison reform." W. Burger, For Whom the Bell Tolls, reprinted at 25 Record of N. Y. C. B. A. (Supp.) 14, 20, 21 (1970).
[8] It cannot be contended that because California permits family, friends, attorneys, and clergy to visit inmates, it cannot limit visitations by the press. No member of the general public who does not have a personal or professional relationship to the inmate is permitted to enter the prison and name an inmate with whom he would like to engage in face-to-face discourse. Thus, the press is granted the same access in this respect to prison inmates as is accorded any member of the general public. Indeed, as is noted in the text, the aggregate access that the press has to California prisons and their inmates is substantially greater than that of the general public.
[9] As Mr. Chief Justice Warren put the matter in writing for the Court in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965), "[t]here are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information."
[*] [This opinion applies also to No. 73-1265, Saxbe et al. v. Washington Post Co. et al., post, p. 843.]
[1] Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Report on the Inspection of Federal Facilities at Leavenworth Penitentiary and the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners 2 (Comm. Print 1974).
[2] Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 219.
[3] "While Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, stated that the First Amendment was applicable to the States by reason of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it has become customary to rest on the broader foundation of the entire Fourteenth Amendment. Free speech and press within the meaning of the First Amendment is, in my judgment, one of the pre-eminent privileges and immunities of all citizens." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 428-429 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment).
EL VOCERO DE PUERTO RICO (CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL NEWS CORP.), et al. v. PUERTO RICO, et al., 508 U.S. 147 (1993)
Related Sub-Topic:
Press Freedoms
LEATHERS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES OF ARKANSAS v. MEDLOCK et al., 499 U.S. 439 (1991)
BUTTERWORTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, et al. v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 624 (1990)
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 493 U.S. 182 (1990)
THE FLORIDA STAR v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989)
THORNBURGH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. ABBOTT et al., 490 U.S. 401 (1989)
TURNER et al. v. SAFLEY et al., 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
SEATTLE TIMES CO., DBA THE SEATTLE TIMES, et al. v. RHINEHART et al., 467 U.S. 20 (1984)
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)
MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NORFOLK, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)
RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al. v. VIRGINIA et al., 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
GANNETT CO., INC. v. DEPASQUALE, COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF SENECA COUNTY, N. Y., et al., 443 U.S. 368 (1979)
SMITH, JUDGE, et al. v. DAILY MAIL PUBLISHING CO. et al., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
HOUCHINS, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA v. KQED, INC., et al., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)
ZURCHER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF PALO ALTO, et al. v. STANFORD DAILY et al., 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)
NIXON v. WARNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
JONES, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA PRISONERS' LABOR UNION, INC., 433 U.S. 119 (1977)
OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO. v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, et al., 430 U.S. 308 (1977)
NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. et al. v. STUART, JUDGE, et al., 427 U.S. 539 (1976)
COX BROADCASTING CORP. et al. v. COHN, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
CANTRELL et al. v. FOREST CITY PUBLISHING CO. et al., 419 U.S. 245 (1974)
MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., DIVISION OF KNIGHT NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. TORNILLO, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
SAXBE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. WASHINGTON POST CO. et al., 417 U.S. 843 (1974)
ALEXANDER et al. v. VIRGINIA, 413 U.S. 836 (1973)
PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. v. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS et al., 413 U.S. 376 (1973)
BRANZBURG v. HAYES et al., JUDGES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
HOYT et al. v. MINNESOTA, 399 U.S. 524 (1970)
BLOSS et al. v. DYKEMA, 398 U.S. 278 (1970)
CARLOS v. NEW YORK, 396 U.S. 119 (1969)
HENRY v. LOUISIANA, 392 U.S. 655 (1968)
FELTON et al. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
I.M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO., 389 U.S. 573 (1968)
ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE ex rel. CANALE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)
WHITEHILL v. ELKINS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, et al., 389 U.S. 54 (1967)
BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORP. v. HANKS, 389 U.S. 81 (1967)
CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)
CENTRAL MAGAZINE SALES, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 50 (1967)
POTOMAC NEWS CO. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 47 (1967)
CONNER v. CITY OF HAMMOND, 389 U.S. 48 (1967)
ADAY et al. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 447 (1967)
BOOKS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 449 (1967)
KENEY v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 440 (1967)
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967)
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 442 (1967)
COBERT v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 443 (1967)
SHEPERD et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 444 (1967)
AVANSINO et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 446 (1967)
CORINTH PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. WESBERRY et al., 388 U.S. 448 (1967)
ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 450 (1967)
SCHACKMAN et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 454 (1967)
Freedom of Assembly & Petition
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
TRALINS v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, 378 U.S. 576 (1964)
CRAIG ET AL. v. HARNEY, SHERIFF, 331 U.S. 367 (1947)
PENNEKAMP et al. v. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331 (1946)
ASSOCIATED PRESS et al. v. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
UNITED STATES ex rel. MILWAUKEE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PUBLISHING COMPANY v. BURLESON, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 407 (1921)
LEWIS PUBLISHING COMPANY v. MORGAN, POSTMASTER IN NEW YORK CITY, 229 U.S. 288 (1913)
Topics: Freedom of the Press,	Press Freedoms,	Prisons
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Search the First Amendment Library
Freedom of Speech & Expression Advocacy of Violence Anonymous Speech Bar Admission Book Banning and Related Activities Campaign Finance Captive Audience Commercial Speech Compelled Speech Content Neutrality Defamatory Expression Electronic Media Faculty Academic Freedom False but Protected Speech Fighting Words Flag Desecration & Use Gag Orders Government Employment Government Speech Government Subsidized Expression Handbills and Leaflets Hateful Speech Hostile Audiences Indecent Expression Jehovah's Witness Expression Loyalty and Security Loyalty Oath Movie Censorship Nude Dancing Obscenity Sexual Material Prior Restraint Profanity Public Forum and Private Property Secondary Effects Sedition Speech Harmful to Children Speech-Conduct Distinction State Action Doctrine Student Expression in the K-12 Setting Symbolic Speech and Expressive Conduct Threats Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions Freedom of Religion Establishment Free Exercise Government Aid to Religious Schools Religion in Public Schools Freedom of the Press Access to Court Trials Child Porn and the First Amendment Defamation and the Press Electronic Press Fairness Doctrine Parody and Satire Press Freedoms Prior Restraint and Review Sedition Freedom of Assembly & Petition Fees & Permits for Marches, Parades, Rallies Parades Picketing Protests Right to Petition Freedom of Association Cases on Campus 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 1915 1914 1913 1912 1911 1910 1909 1908 1907 1906 1905 1904 1903 1902 1901 1900 1899 1898 1897 1896 1895 1894 1893 1892 1891 1890 1889 1888 1887 1886 1885 1884 1883 1882 1881 1880 1879 1878 1877 1876 1875 1874 1873 1872 1871 1870 1869 1868 1867 1866 1865 1864 1863 1862 1861 1860 1859 1858 1857 1856 1855 1854 1853 1852 1851 1850 1849 1848 1847 1846 1845 1844 1843 1842 1841 1840 1839 1838 1837 1836 1835 1834 1833 1832 1831 1830 1829 1828 1827 1826 1825 1824 1823 1822 1821 1820 1819 1818 1817 1816 1815 1814 1813 1812 1811 1810 1809 1808 1807 1806 1805 1804 1803 1802 1801 1800 1799 1798 1797 1796 1795 1794 1793 1792 1791 1790 1789 1788 1787 1786 1785 1784 1783 1782 1781 1780 1779 1778 1777 1776


text:
Subscribe to California Consumer Privacy Act
CNIL Hits Google With €150 Million Fine Over Cookie Consent Violations
By Odia Kagan on January 7, 2022
The Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés, the French Data Protection Agency, has issued a 150M Euro fine against Google and a 60M Euro fine against Facebook/Meta for cookie consent violations.
Here are some key takeaways, and their US relevance:
It must be as easy to refuse cookies as it is to accept them.
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act, General Privacy & Data Security News & Developments
What is the Online Privacy Act of 2021?
By Odia Kagan on December 3, 2021
U.S. Congresswomen Anna Eshoo (D-California) and Zoe Lofgren (D-California) have reintroduced House Resolution 6027 for the Online Privacy Act of 2021.
Some of the bill's key differentiators from CCPA, CDPA and CPA:
limitations on the disclosure of personal information to third parties that are not subject to the Act/jurisdiction of the US (Counter-Schrems II) (Section
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), General Privacy & Data Security News & Developments, United States
What Does The U.K.'s Information Commissioner's Office Think About DCMS's 'Data: Unlimited' Initiative?
By Odia Kagan on October 28, 2021
A businessman paints many different arrows on a white wall.
The U.K.'s Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has responded to the U.K.'s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) "Data: Unlimited" initiative.
There is a lot to unpack. Here is an analysis I wrote for OneTrust DataGuidance that may be helpful.
The current approach does not work for people or businesses and commitment
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act, European Union, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Some Sites Require Readers to 'Buy Back' Their Own Data. Is That Fair?
By Odia Kagan on August 26, 2021
Can consent be considered "freely given" if the alternative is to pay 10, 20 or 100 times the market price of your data to keep it to yourself?
That is what noyb.eu is asking in new complaints against seven major German and Austrian news websites.
It's important to note that a somewhat similar test requiring…
Beware: California Attorney General Is Enforcing CCPA
Have you been leisurely following California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) litigation thinking, "That's only for data breaches, not 'soft' violations."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office has been busy enforcing CCPA for the past year.
Per a new enforcement report, you had better make sure that:
Your privacy policy is easily understood.
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act
Key Takeaways: The Ohio Personal Privacy Act
The Ohio Personal Privacy Act, also known as House Bill 376, is being considered in the Buckeye State.
Here are a few takeaways:
Enforcement by Attorney General only
Affirmative defense for companies that maintain and comply with a written privacy program that reasonably conforms with the NIST Privacy Framework.
"Business" include non-profits
Similar to Virginia
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), General Privacy & Data Security News & Developments
How to Protect Children — and Your Business — When It Comes to Data Privacy
By Odia Kagan on June 29, 2021
Children's data isn't child's play.
If you have a product or service that collects information from children, you should:
Be transparent. No, really. And figure out the best ways to be transparent for kids, which includes just in time notices, video and audio. It is a good idea to enlist the help of UX/CX experts
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act, Data Protection Law Compliance, Privacy Rights
What is the 'Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act?'
By Odia Kagan on June 3, 2021
U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts has introduced the "Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act."
If signed into law, the bill will impose several new requirements on online platforms:
Transparency – including explaining the information collected, how it is used (for advertising and/or content moderation), method by which the type of algorithmic process
Posted in California Consumer Privacy Act, Data Protection Law Compliance, General Privacy & Data Security News & Developments, Privacy Rights
New Data Privacy Legislation Introduced in West, Mountain States
By Odia Kagan on February 3, 2021
North Dakota, Utah, Washington State. .. all three have recently introduced new pieces of data privacy legislation.
Utah State Rep. Walt Brooks, has introduced House Bill 80, which creates an "affirmative defense" for companies in lawsuits over data breaches, provided they can prove that they maintain up-to-date data security.
"It doesn't give them immunity and it doesn't release them from liability especially if they're negligent," said Brooks.
Another bill introduced in the legislature regulates the state's use of facial recognition technology.
House Majority Leader Francis Gibson, has introduced House Bill 243, which creates a statewide "privacy officer" to look at how state and local governments use some tech and whether or not people's personal information is protected.
Details from Fox 13 in Salt Lake City
Continue Reading New Data Privacy Legislation Introduced in West, Mountain States
Lost at CCPA? Amendment Would Exclude Watercraft-Related Information
By Odia Kagan on January 31, 2021
Assembly Bill 335 has been introduced in the California legislature to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to include an exception for watercraft-related information.
The bill would expand the "vehicle information" exception, and states that if a vessel dealer shares vessel information or ownership information with a vessel manufacturer for the purpose of effectuating,…

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Fleets of metered taxis, auto-rickshaws and cycle-rickshaws clog the streets of Delhi providing transport for locals and visitors. Rates fluctuate, but drivers should have rate charts available and tourists should ensure the meter is reset, or a price negotiated before departure. A ring railway starts and ends at the Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station with trains running in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions around the city. The Delhi Transport Corporation runs a large fleet of buses covering the entire city, but these are always overcrowded. There are night service buses on selected routes and from the three main railway stations between 11pm and 5am. The Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) covers 135 miles (280km) and 164 stations between Delhi and its satellite cities of Faridabad, Gurgaon, Noida, and Ghaziabad. It also has a fast airport line. It is not advised to hire a car in Delhi as the driving is frenetic and the traffic overwhelming. There are parts of the city where walking is the best way to take in the sights and sounds, but in general transport is required to get around.


Carolyn brings to Moco Insight both proven leadership and marketing/sales expertise. Passionate about giving customers what they want Carolyn has worked around the world with companies such as HSBC, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.
Carolyn has successfully worked and built a range of companies such as a recruitment, sponsorship and a software company. Each company had the same goal find a customers problem and build a solution that solves it for them simply.
Rob began his career as an Outdoor Educator but soon found his inner geek when he took a job at a printing firm helping them install their new IT systems. He impressed the supplier so much they offered him a job and within two years Rob was running their Research and Development Department.
Since then Rob has successfully set up numerous IT companies who have sold data driven software systems to Thomas Cook, the Australian Air Force, Technology One and Mincom. Our resident futurologist, Rob is always one step ahead of the data trends in terms of predicting company systems requirement needed to service their customers.
Dale has many years developing and implementing software systems for the automotive, medical and financial industries. He has been instrumental in the development of Moco Insight's product offering by applying his personal interest of using data to identify human behavioural patterns into the core design of our systems.
By developing in the agile technologies such as Python and Django, Dale has built a highly flexible data analytic tool that creates a customised reporting system for each client. No cookie cutting tool for our clients.


text:
namespace Popsql.Tests.Text
{
	internal static class StringExtensions
	{
		public static string ToLowerIf(this string s, bool condition)
		{
			return condition ? s.ToLower() : s;
		}
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Including players from the Canberra Raiders that have represented while at the club and the years they  achieved their honours, if known.

International

Australia
    Mal Meninga (1986, 1988–94)
    Gary Belcher (1988–91)
    Sam Backo (1988)
    Peter Jackson (1988)
    Bradley Clyde (1989, 1991–94)
    Laurie Daley (1990–94, 1998–99)
    Glenn Lazarus (1990–91)
    Ricky Stuart (1990, 1994)
    Steve Walters (1991–94)
    Gary Coyne (1991)
    Brett Mullins (1994)
    David Furner (1994)
    Jason Croker (2000)
    Terry Campese (2008)
    Joel Monaghan (2008)
    David Shillington (2009–12)
    Tom Learoyd-Lahrs (2010)
    Josh Papalii (2013–19)
    Shannon Boyd (2016)
    Nick Cotric (2019)
    Jack Wighton (2019–22)

Australia (SL)
    Bradley Clyde (1997)
    Laurie Daley (1997)
    Brett Mullins (1997)
    David Furner (1997)
    Ken Nagas (1997)
    Luke Priddis (1997)

Great Britain
    John Bateman (2019)
    Josh Hodgson (2019)
    Elliott Whitehead (2019)

England
    Josh Hodgson (2015–18)
    Elliott Whitehead (2016–18, 2022)
    John Bateman (2018)

Fiji
    Noa Nadruku (1994–97)
    Tabua Cakacaka (2000)
    Mikaele Ravalawa (2017)
    Semi Valemei (2022)

New Zealand
    Brent Todd (1987, 1989–91)
    Sean Hoppe (1992–93)
    Quentin Pongia (1993, 1995–97)
    John Lomax  (1993–95)
    Ruben Wiki (1994-04)
    Lesley Vainikolo (1999-00)
    Bronson Harrison (2009–10)
    Joseph Tapine (2016-19, 2022)
    Jordan Rapana (2016–18, 2022)
    Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad (2019, 2022)
    Sebastian Kris (2022)

South Africa
    Sean Rutgerson (2000)

Papua New Guinea
    David Westley (1995–96)
    Bruce Mamando (1995)
    Neville Costigan (2008)
    Luke Page (2015)
    Kato Ottio (2016)
    Kurt Baptiste (2016)

Cook Island
    Sam Mataora (2013)
    Ezra Howe (2015)
    Jordan Rapana (2015)
    Makahesi Makatoa (2017)

Samoa
    Anthony Swann (2000)
    Alby Talipeau (2008)
    Anthony Milford (2013)
    Junior Paulo (2016)
    Joseph Leilua (2017)
    Josh Papalii (2017)

Tonga
    Una Taufa (1995)
    Greg Wolfgramm (2000)
    Brent Kite (2000)
    Sam Huihahau (2009)
    Bill Tupou (2014)
    Siliva Havili (2018–19)
    Ata Hingano (2018)

Turkey
    Aidan Sezer (2018)
    Emre Guler (2018)

Lebanon
  Reece Robinson (2014)
  Jamal Nchouk (2014)

Italy
  Paul Vaughan (2013)

Scotland
    Scott Logan (2008)

Ireland
    Brett White (2013)

Wales
    Justin Morgan (2000)

State Of Origin

New South Wales
    John Ferguson (1988–89)
    Bradley Clyde (1989–92, 1994)
    Laurie Daley (1989–94, 1996, 1998–99)
    Glenn Lazarus (1989–91)
    Ricky Stuart (1990–94)
    Jason Croker (1993, 1996, 2001)
    Brett Mullins (1994, 1996)
    Ken Nagas (1994)
    David Furner (1996, 1998–00)
    Ben Kennedy (1999)
    Ryan O'Hara (2004)
    Joel Monaghan (2008–10)
    Terry Campese (2009)
    Tom Learoyd-Lahrs (2009–10)
    Josh Dugan (2011)
    Blake Ferguson (2013)
 Nick Cotric (2019)
 Jack Wighton (2019–22)

New South Wales (SL)
    Bradley Clyde (1997)
    Laurie Daley (1997)
    Brett Mullins (1997)
    David Furner (1997)
    Ken Nagas (1997)
    Luke Priddis (1997)

Queensland
    Mal Meninga (1986, 1989–94)
    Gary Belcher (1986–90, 1993)
    Peter Jackson (1987–88)
    Sam Backo (1988)
    Gary Coyne (1989–92)
    Kevin Walters (1989)
    Steve Walters (1990–94, 1996)
    Clinton Schifcofske (2002, 2006)
    Adam Mogg (2006)
    Neville Costigan (2007)
    David Shillington (2009–13)
    Josh Papalii (2013–22)
    Dunamis Lui (2020)

All Stars Game

Indigenous All Stars
    Tom Learoyd-Lahrs (2010, 2011, 2012)
    Joel Thompson (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)
    Travis Waddell (2010, 2011, 2012)
    Reece Robinson (2013)
    Blake Ferguson (2013)
    Jake Foster (2013)
    Jack Wighton (2013, 2015, 2016)
   Edrick Lee (2016)

NRL All Stars
    David Shillington (2010, 2013)
    Josh Dugan (2011, 2012)
    Jarrod Croker (2015)

City Vs Country Origin

NSW Country
    Ashley Gilbert (1988)
    Chris O'Sullivan (1988)
    Ivan Henjak (1989)
    Dean Lance (1990)
    Paul Martin (1991)
    Jason Croker (2001)
    Mark McLinden (2001)
    Simon Woolford (2002)
    Ryan O'Hara (2003–04)
    Phil Graham (2007)
    Joel Monaghan (2008–09)
    Todd Carney (2008)
    Terry Campese (2009)
    Alan Tongue (2009)
    Tom Learoyd-Lahrs (2010–12)
    Josh Dugan (2010–11)
    Joel Thompson (2011)
    Blake Ferguson (2012)
    Josh McCrone (2012–13)
    Jack Wighton (2013–16)
    Sam Williams (2013)
    Paul Vaughan (2014–16)
    Jarrod Croker (2015–16)
    Shannon Boyd (2016)

NSW City
    Bradley Clyde (1989)
    Glenn Lazarus (1989)
    Ricky Stuart (1990)
    Brad Drew (2004)
    Blake Austin (2015)
    Aiden Sezer (2016)

Other honours

Prime Minister's XIII
    Tom Learoyd-Lahrs (2005, 2009)
    Joel Monaghan (2007–09)
    David Shillington (2007, 2009, 2011, 2013)
    Terry Campese (2008, 2009)
    Alan Tongue (2008)
    Joe Picker (2008)
    Josh Dugan (2009)
    Blake Ferguson (2010, 2011)
    Josh Papalii (2013, 2014)
    Anthony Milford (2014)
    Jarrod Croker (2014)

Indigenous Dreamtime Team
    Justin Carney (2008)

New Zealand Māori
    Bronx Goodwin (2008)

Representative Captains

World Cup Captains
Australia
    Mal Meninga (1990–92)

Test Captains
Australia
    Mal Meninga (1990–94)
    Laurie Daley (1993, 1997 (SL), 1998)

Representative Coaching Staff

International
Australia
    Don Furner (Coach - 1986–87)
Tim Sheen's 20??

State Of Origin
New South Wales
    Tim Sheens (Coach - 1991)

Queensland
    Wayne Bennett (Coach - 1987)
    Neil Henry (Assistant Coach - 2007–08)

City Vs Country Origin
NSW City
    Tim Sheens (Coach - 1991)

Other honours
Indigenous Dreamtime Team
    Neil Henry (Coach - 2008)

References

Rugby league representative players lists
Canberra Raiders

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Served 92 clients during the 2014-2015 SERTOMA year and 1966 clients over the last 27 years.
Administrative costs are less than one cent per dollar paid for services rendered.
Leverage to commercial provider costs is about four times.
Served hard of hearing, low income persons from ages 2 months to 102 years.
Changed service area to serve El Paso county only and sponsored clients from the State of Colorado.
Received authority from the State of Colorado to solicit funds from external resources.
Supported the 2015 HEARS5KEXPERIENCE fundraiser for H.E.A.R.S.
This fun walk run generated over $10,000 for H.E.A.R.S. on August 29, 2015!
This was the 5th year H5KE supported HEARS with funds for hearing aids.


**Note: Batteries are only sold to local customers and are not shippable However, we do ship world-wide through freight forwarders.
Any golf cart owner can tell you the most important part of the golf cart is the battery. While the smoothness of the ride and the durability of its interior and exterior go a long way towards impacting the overall experience, without a reliable – and properly maintained and charged – battery, the cart can quickly become a nightmare. At Blockbuster Golf Carts, Inc., we proudly carry top of the line, durable, and reliable Crown golf cart batteries.
Crown golf cart batteries come highly recommended, and our industry position allows us to carry golf cart batteries for sale at a very competitive price for our customers. While golf cart club car, cart, parts, and accessories manufactures continue to improve the products available to our customers, no other company has yet been able to demonstrate the quality and value in a battery the way that Crown golf cart batteries has. Our expert team continuously tracks the best equipment we can offer our customers, and should any battery offer a better quality and value in golf car batteries down the line, we may expand our inventory. As yet, however, no other company has as far as we're concerned.
Our commitment to bringing the best value and quality to our customers is why Blockbuster Golf Carts, Inc., carries only Crown deep cycle batteries. Once you've tried a Crown deep cycle battery, you'll understand why too. The majority of electric golf carts run on 8 or 6 volt golf cart batteries, and in order to maximize the value of our inventory we stock primarily 8 and 6v golf cart batteries to efficiently meet his demand. If you are in need of a 12v golf cart battery, please contact us directly to inquire. Our extensive network of connections and stellar industry position enables us to offer competitive pricing on items not necessarily in our standard inventory list.
Our industry position also enables us to offer competitive pricing through exchange of your present junk core battery. If you've ever tried to appropriately dispose of 8 volt golf cart batteries, you'll understand how this exchange is in some ways an added service at a savings rather than an added cost. Not only does it protect you from the ramifications – including local legal concerns in some cases – of not disposing appropriately of your old batteries, but it also allows us to partner with you in helping the environment.


text:
Q: MySQL statement combining a join and a count? I've got a table of 'folders'. I want to return all the records with the userId of 16.
SELECT * FROM `folders` WHERE userId = 16;

I've got a table of 'files'. For each 'folder' returned above, I want to return a count of 'files' within that 'folder'.
SELECT COUNT(*) as "Files" FROM files WHERE Folder = n;

How do I combine these? I'm lost. Thanks!

A: SELECT  fol.*
 ,      (       SELECT  COUNT(*)
                FROM    files           fil
                WHERE   fil.Folder      = fol.Folder
        )       AS      "Files"
FROM    folders         fol
WHERE   fol.userId      = 16

It's called a correlated subquery.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/correlated-subqueries.html

A: Do a sub query that groups by the Folders to get the count per folder, then join it
to the first query like this:
    select
       f.*
       fc.Files
    from
       Folders f
--
       -- Join the sub query with the counts by folder
       JOIN (select
               Folder,
               count(*) Files
             from
                files
             group by
                Folder ) as fc
          on ( fc.Folder = f.Folder )
    where
       f.userid = 16

A: select
    f.`folder`,
    f.`userId`,
    r.`count`

from
    `folders` f
    left join
    (
        select
            `Folder`,
            count(`id`) `count`

        from `files`

            group by `Folder`
    ) r
        on r.`Folder`=f.`folder`

where
    `userId`=16

if you do not want to use the group by statement.

i had a simmilar problem in a product list where i wanted to count the star rating of a product in another table [1-5] and the amount of users that voted for that specific product.

A: you would probably need to use GROUP BY and group it by ID or such:
SELECT
    folders.*,
    COUNT(files.*) as filetotal
FROM folders
    LEFT JOIN files ON folders.ID=files.folderID
WHERE userId = 16
GROUP BY folders.ID

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>

	<meta charset="utf-8" />
	<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
	<title>Ladders</title>
	<link rel="stylesheet" href="stylesheets/normalize.css" />
	<link rel="stylesheet" href="stylesheets/app.css" />
	<link rel="stylesheet" href="stylesheets/style.css" />

Ladders Web App

Configuration

			<form name="player-config" class="player-config custom">

Total players: 0

				<fieldset>
					<legend>Player Management</legend>
					Players

							<input type="text" name="name" placeholder="Name" />

							<input type="submit" name="submit" value="Add" class="button success radius postfix" />

				</fieldset>

Player nameRemove player

			</form>
			<form name="event-config" class="event-config custom">
				<fieldset>
					<legend>Tournament Settings</legend>
					Tournament Name
					<input type="text" name="event-name" placeholder="Name of the Event" />
					Tournament Type
					<select name="event-type">
						<option value="none">Select Type</option>
						<option value="Swiss">Swiss</option>
		                <option value="Single Elimination">Single Elimination</option>
		                <option value="Double Elimination">Double Elimination</option>
		                <option value="Round Robin">Round Robin</option>
					</select>
					Number of Rounds
					<input type="text" name="event-rounds" placeholder="Number of Rounds" />
					<input type="submit" name="submit" value="Update Settings" class="small button success radius" />
				</fieldset>
			</form>
			<form name="reset-config" class="reset-config custom">
				<input type="submit" name="submit" value="Reset Ladder" class="small button alert radius" />
			</form>

Round 0

Player

vs

Player


text:
Film Review – The Glass Castle (2017)
December 18, 2017 · by Eddie · in Eddie's Space, Film Reviews, Film reviews: Drama. ·
Title – The Glass Castle (2017)
Director – Destin Daniel Cretton (Short Term 12)
Cast – Woody Harrelson, Brie Larson, Naomi Watts, Ella Anderson, Chandler Head, Sarah Snook, Max Greenfield
Plot – The true story of writer Jeannette Walls (Larson) and her untypical upbringing in her family lead by her erratic and alcoholic father Rex (Harrelson).
"We ain't like other people. We got a fire burning in our bellies"
A true case of just ignore the critics, The Glass Castle presents one of the year's most undeservedly mistreated major releases and for anyone that would cast their eye over many of the negative critical responses to director Destin Daniel Cretton's great follow-up to his indie darling Short Term 12 and choose to not see this touching based on a true story, they'd be missing out on one of the year's underseen gems.
Based on Jeannette Walls autobiographical book of the same name, The Glass Castle tells the poignant story of Walls life growing up with her siblings under the care of their parental duo in the form of Naomi Watt's artistic and free spirited Rose Mary and most tellingly Woody Harrelson's intellectually attuned, yet troubled and alcoholic father Rex.
Telling the story in two era's with both Brie Larson's older and career minded Jeannette struggling to come to grips with her upbringing and her loving yet divisive relationship with her father and Walls as a young girl, being constantly uprooted by her parents lifestyle and frequently letdown by a father that promises much, yet fails to deliver.
Over the course of The Glass Castle's two hour runtime we feel a part of the Wall family life, the good, the bad and all that falls in-between and showcasing the eye he has for humanity and relatable human flaws and graces, Cretton is perfectly in tune with his performers and characters as we begin to feel their disappointments, their frustrations and most importantly their bonds.
At the heart of Cretton's film also is some fantastic turns from his varied Wall performers and from the young Chandler Hand through to Larson's incarnation, all actors work well to bring Jeannette to life while Rex Walls gives Woody Harrelson one of his meatiest feature film roles in a number of years.
After career revivals in Zombieland and HBO's megahit first season of True Detective, Harrelson once more showcases his acting chops in the difficult role of Rex.
Flirting the line between despicable drunk to kind-hearted protector, Harrelson delivers an awards worthy turn here and while Cretton's film may not have been taken up by critics or audiences in the way in which The Glass Castle deserved, there's little denying Harrelson's impressive performance is one of the years very best.
Ignore the overriding critical consensus and you'll find a film full of raw emotion, power and a beautifully constructed human heart. With The Glass Castle Cretton has crafted an emotionally engaging and thought-provoking family drama and one of the year's best dramatic efforts, featuring one of Woody Harrelson's most memorable film roles.
4 ½ arm wrestling matches out of 5
Tags: book, books, Brie Larson, Destin Daniel Cretton, film, films, Jeannette Walls, movie, movies, Naomi Watts, review, reviews, The Glass Castle, Woody Harrelson
← Film Review – Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017): Eddie's Take
Film Review – Hotel Coolgardie (2016) →
4 responses to "Film Review – The Glass Castle (2017)"
Pingback: Best and Worst of 2017: Eddie's Take | Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)·
Pingback: Top 10 Films of the Decade (2010 – 2019) | Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)·
Pingback: Film Review – Just Mercy (2019) | Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)·
Pingback: Film Review – Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) | Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)·


I am looking for a WooCommerce plug in that will allow me to pull lists based on user type, money spent, date range or day, if clients have set-up wholesale account but not purchased and if they have only bought samples and not repurchased.
I also may need assistance loading these lists into mail chimp and Zoho crm.
We are looking for the ability to pull lists like this as often as we want.


text:
Shami rues 'loose' batting with tip to focus on job
Mohammed Shami, an integral part of India's famed pace bowling attack, has conceded that "loose ba...
Some hope for Djoker
World No. 1 tennis player Novak Djokovic could be allowed to defend his French Open title under the latest Cov...
Hunt for balance to kickstart Rohit era
A fit Rohit Sharma will take charge as India's limited overs captain when the three-match ODI and T20I s...
Peng Shuai: Nod to shirts, with a rider
Fans are free to wear "Where is Peng Shuai?" shirts at the Australian Open but they must not becom...
Shades of Connors in Medvedev court-ship
Daniil Medvedev has tapped into the energy of the crowd at Melbourne Park by playing both hero and villain, wh...
Stampede at stadium crushes fans
At least eight people died and 38 were injured in a stampede when fans stormed a stadium hosting an Africa Cup...
Sports / Published 12.05.21
EPL: Manchester City champions as United lose
Manchester City can finally pop the champagne after Manchester United lost 1-2 at home to Leicester City on Tuesday. Luke Thomas and Çaglar Söyüncü scored for Leicester while Ma...
By Agencies in Manchester
Women boxers own the ring
India's previous best was five gold medals at the 2017 meet in Guwahati. A talk with the medallists, all 17-18-year-olds, revealed their grit and spunk. Take Vinka, for example. When she was f...
By Madhumita Ganguly in Calcutta
Porto may host final
Uefa has urged the British government to offer travel waivers it requires to move the Champions League final to Wembley or the all-English game could be played in Portugal instead. The May 29 showpie...
By AP/PTI in London
Red-flag for IPL England players
Sourav Ganguly's apprehensions came true on Tuesday when Ashley Giles, managing director of England men's cricket, confirmed his players will not be released from international duty if the...
By Indranil Majumdar in Calcutta
Young guns set for big leap
The recent success of younger players on the men's Tour points to an "inevitable" shift at the top of the ATP rankings, world No. 1 Novak Djokovic has said. The last four ATP Master...
By Reuters in Rome
One-track mind? The games speed czars play
Lewis Hamilton may have opened up a new front in his battle with Max Verstappen after saying he learned more about his Formula One title rival, and the Dutchman's car, in Sunday's Spanish ...
By Reuters in Barcelona
Jakarta 'assist' Fortunato Franco no more
Fortunato Franco, one of the pillars of India's last Asian Games gold medal-winning football team in 1962, passed away in Goa on Monday. He was 84 and is survived by his wife, son and daughter. Fra...
By Our Bureau in Calcutta, New Delhi
Zverev dreams of Paris after clay win
Alexander Zverev underlined his credentials as a French Open title contender with a battling 6-7(8), 6-4, 6-3 victory over Italian Matteo Berrettini on Sunday to claim his fourth Masters 1000 crown an...
By Reuters in Madrid
Zahavi's wife gagged and robbed in Amsterdam
The wife of PSV Eindhoven and Israel striker Eran Zahavi said on Monday that she was the victim of a "horrifying experience" after two robbers, one of them armed, tied up and gagged her an...
By Reuters in The Hague
Juve's last-4 tightrope run
Juventus started the season looking to win a 10th straight Serie A title but instead find themselves in danger of missing out on a Champions League spot after a 0-3 home defeat by top-four rivals AC M...
By Reuters in Turin
Download our latest App
to get update on the go...