text:
Filter by: All Collections Conan CFR US Code Constitution Federal Rules FRAP FRBP FRCP FRCMP FRE Supct UCC States World Uniform Wex Supreme Court
All Wex articles
liibulletin
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright (No. 155)
Argued: January 15, 1963
Decided: March 18, 1963
Reversed and cause remanded.
Opinion, Black
Separate, Douglas
Concurrence, Clark
Concurrence, Harlan
Charged in a Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Petitioner conducted his own defense about as well as could be expected of a layman, but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.
Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, overruled. Pp. 336-345.
[p336]
BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under [p337] Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him, whereupon the following colloquy took place:
The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.
The DEFENDANT: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.
Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument "emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case." The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in the state prison. Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government." [n1] Treating the petition for habeas corpus as properly before it, the State Supreme Court, "upon consideration thereof" but without an opinion, denied all relief. Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, was decided by a divided [p338] Court, the problem of a defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. [n2] To give this problem another review here, we granted certiorari. 370 U.S. 908. Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments the following: "Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, be reconsidered?"
The facts upon which Betts claimed that he had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are strikingly like the facts upon which Gideon here bases his federal constitutional claim. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advised that it was not the practice in that county to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He then pleaded not guilty, had witnesses summoned, cross-examined the State's witnesses, examined his own, and chose not to testify himself. He was found guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to eight years in prison. [p339] Like Gideon, Betts sought release by habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts was denied any relief, and, on review, this Court affirmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, for reasons given, the Court deemed to be the only applicable federal constitutional provision. The Court said:
Asserted denial [of due process] is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.
316 U.S. at 462. Treating due process as "a concept less rigid and more fluid than those envisaged in other specific and particular provisions of the Bill of Rights," the Court held that refusal to appoint counsel under the particular facts and circumstances in the Betts case was not so "offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness" as to amount to a denial of due process. Since the facts and circumstances of the two cases are so nearly indistinguishable, we think the Betts v. Brady holding, if left standing, would require us to reject Gideon's claim that the Constitution guarantees him the assistance of counsel. Upon full reconsideration, we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled.
The Sixth Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." We have construed [p340] this to mean that, in federal courts, counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right is competently and intelligently waived. [n3] Betts argued that this right is extended to indigent defendants in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment. In response, the Court stated that, while the Sixth Amendment laid down
no rule for the conduct of the States, the question recurs whether the constraint laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
316 U.S. at 465. In order to decide whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is of this fundamental nature, the Court in Betts set out and considered
[r]elevant data on the subject . . . afforded by constitutional and statutory provisions subsisting in the colonies and the States prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the national Constitution, and in the constitutional, legislative, and judicial history of the States to the present date.
316 U.S. at 465. On the basis of this historical data, the Court concluded that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial." 316 U.S. at 471. It was for this reason the Betts Court refused to accept the contention that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel for indigent federal defendants was extended to or, in the words of that Court, "made obligatory upon, the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." Plainly, had the Court concluded that appointment of counsel for an indigent criminal defendant was "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial," it would have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in a state court, just as the Sixth Amendment requires in a federal court. [p341]
We think the Court in Betts had ample precedent for acknowledging that those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental safeguards of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This same principle was recognized, explained, and applied in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), a case upholding the right of counsel, where the Court held that, despite sweeping language to the contrary in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), the Fourteenth Amendment "embraced" those "'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'" even though they had been "specifically dealt with in another part of the federal Constitution." 287 U.S. at 67. In many cases other than Powell and Betts, this Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this "fundamental nature," and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. [n4] For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment's command that [p342] private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, [n5] the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, [n6] and the Eighth's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. [n7] On the other hand, this Court in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), refused to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment made the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment obligatory on the States. In so refusing, however, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Cardozo, was careful to emphasize that
immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states,
and that guarantees "in their origin . . . effective against the federal government alone" had, by prior cases,
been taken over from the earlier articles of the federal bill of rights and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption.
302 U.S. at 323, 325, 326.
We accept Betts v. Brady's assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights which is "fundamental and essential to a fair trial" is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights. Ten years before Betts v. Brady, this Court, after full consideration of all the historical data examined in Betts, had unequivocally declared that "the right to the aid of [p343] counsel is of this fundamental character." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932). While the Court, at the close of its Powell opinion, did, by its language, as this Court frequently does, limit its holding to the particular facts and circumstances of that case, its conclusions about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel are unmistakable. Several years later, in 1936, the Court reemphasized what it had said about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel in this language:
We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safeguarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and among them the fundamental right of the accused to the aid of counsel in a criminal prosecution.
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 243-244 (1936). And again, in 1938, this Court said:
[The assistance of counsel] is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty. . . . The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that, if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not "still be done."
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462 (1938). To the same effect, see Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444 (1940), and Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (1941). In light of these and many other prior decisions of this Court, it is not surprising that the Betts Court, when faced with the contention that "one charged with crime, who is unable to obtain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State," conceded that "[e]xpressions in the opinions of this court lend color to the argument. . . ." 316 U.S. at 462-463. The fact is that, in deciding as it did -- that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, [p344] essential to a fair trial" -- the Court in Betts v. Brady made an abrupt break with its own well considered precedents. In returning to these old precedents, sounder, we believe, than the new, we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice. Not only these precedents, but also reason and reflection, require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. A defendant's need for a lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the moving words of Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama:
The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be [p345] heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.
287 U.S. at 68-69. The Court in Betts v. Brady departed from the sound wisdom upon which the Court's holding in Powell v. Alabama rested. Florida, supported by two other States, has asked that Betts v. Brady be left intact. Twenty-two States, as friends of the Court, argue that Betts was "an anachronism when handed down," and that it should now be overruled. We agree.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.
1. Later, in the petition for habeas corpus, signed and apparently prepared by petitioner himself, he stated, "I, Clarence Earl Gideon, claim that I was denied the rights of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights."
2. Of the many such cases to reach this Court, recent examples are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962); Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U.S. 697 (1960); Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957). Illustrative cases in the state courts are Artrip v. State, 136 So.2d 574 (Ct.App.Ala.1962); Shafer v. Warden, 211 Md. 635, 126 A.2d 573 (1956). For examples of commentary, see Allen, The Supreme Court, Federalism, and State Systems of Criminal Justice, 8 De Paul L.Rev. 213 (1959); Kamisar, The Right to Counsel and the Fourteenth Amendment: A Dialogue on "The Most Pervasive Right" of an Accused, 30 U. of Chi.L.Rev. 1 (1962); The Right to Counsel, 45 Minn.L.Rev. 693 (1961).
3.Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).
4.E.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) (speech and press); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450 (1938) (speech and press); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 (1958) (speech); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936) (press); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (religion); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937) (assembly); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 486, 488 (1960) (association); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U.S. 293, 296 (1961) (association); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) (speech, assembly, petition for redress of grievances).
5.E.g., Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 235-241 (1897); Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522-526 (1898).
6.E.g., Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27-28 (1949); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961).
7.Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962).
CLARK, J., Concurring in the Result
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, concurring in the result.
In Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948), this Court found no special circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel, but stated that,
if these charges had been capital charges, the court would have been required, both by the state statute and the decisions of this Court interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, to take some such steps.
Id. at 674. Prior to that case, I find no language in any cases in this Court indicating that appointment of counsel in all capital cases was required by the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] At the next Term of the Court, Mr. Justice Reed revealed that the Court was divided as to noncapital cases, but that "the due process clause . . . requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crimes. . . ." Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437, 441 (1948). Finally, in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), we said that, "[w]hen one pleads to a capital charge without benefit of counsel, we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted." Id. at 55. [p348]
That the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in "all criminal prosecutions" is clear both from the language of the Amendment and from this Court's interpretation. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938). It is equally clear from the above cases, all decided after Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), that the Fourteenth Amendment requires such appointment in all prosecutions for capital crimes. The Court's decision today, then, does no more than erase a distinction which has no basis in logic and an increasingly eroded basis in authority. In Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960), we specifically rejected any constitutional distinction between capital and noncapital offenses as regards congressional power to provide for court-martial trials of civilian dependents of armed forces personnel. Having previously held that civilian dependents could not constitutionally be deprived of the protections of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in capital cases, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), we held that the same result must follow in noncapital cases. Indeed, our opinion there foreshadowed the decision today, [n2] as we noted that:
Obviously Fourteenth Amendment cases dealing with state action have no application here, but if [p349] they did, we believe that to deprive civilian dependents of the safeguards of a jury trial here . . . would be as invalid under those cases as it would be in cases of a capital nature.
361 U.S. at 246-247.
I must conclude here, as in Kinsella, supra, that the Constitution makes no distinction between capital and noncapital cases. The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process of law for the deprival of "liberty," just as for deprival of "life," and there cannot constitutionally be a difference in the quality of the process based merely upon a supposed difference in the sanction involved. How can the Fourteenth Amendment tolerate a procedure which it condemns in capital cases on the ground that deprival of liberty may be less onerous than deprival of life -- a value judgment not universally accepted [n3] -- or that only the latter deprival is irrevocable? I can find no acceptable rationalization for such a result, and I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court.
1. It might, however, be said that there is such an implication in Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444 (1940), a capital case in which counsel had been appointed, but in which the petitioner claimed a denial of "effective" assistance. The Court, in affirming, noted that,
[h]ad petitioner been denied any representation of counsel at all, such a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of assistance of counsel would have required reversal of his conviction.
Id. at 445. No "special circumstances" were recited by the Court, but, in citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), as authority for its dictum, it appears that the Court did not rely solely on the capital nature of the offense.
2. Portents of today's decision may be found as well in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), and Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570 (1961). In Griffin, a noncapital case, we held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the State's procedure, which provided free transcripts for indigent defendants only in capital cases. In Ferguson, we struck down a state practice denying the appellant the effective assistance of counsel, cautioning that
[o]ur decision does not turn on the facts that the appellant was tried for a capital offense and was represented by employed counsel. The command of the Fourteenth Amendment also applies in the case of an accused tried for a noncapital offense, or represented by appointed counsel.
365 U.S. at 596.
3.See, e.g., Barzun, In Favor of Capital Punishment, 31 American Scholar 181, 188-189 (1962).
HARLAN, J., Concurring Opinion
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
I agree that Betts v. Brady should be overruled, but consider it entitled to a more respectful burial than has been accorded, at least on the part of those of us who were not on the Court when that case was decided.
I cannot subscribe to the view that Betts v. Brady represented "an abrupt break with its own well considered precedents." Ante, p. 344. In 1932, in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, a capital case, this Court declared that, under the particular facts there presented --
the ignorance and illiteracy of the defendants, their youth, the circumstances of public hostility . . . and, above all, that they stood in deadly peril of their lives
(287 U.S. at 71) -- the state court had a duty to assign counsel for [p350] the trial as a necessary requisite of due process of law. It is evident that these limiting facts were not added to the opinion as an afterthought; they were repeatedly emphasized, see 287 U.S. at 52, 57-58, 71, and were clearly regarded as important to the result.
Thus, when this Court, a decade later, decided Betts v. Brady, it did no more than to admit of the possible existence of special circumstances in noncapital, as well as capital, trials, while at the same time insisting that such circumstances be shown in order to establish a denial of due process. The right to appointed counsel had been recognized as being considerably broader in federal prosecutions, see Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, but to have imposed these requirements on the States would indeed have been "an abrupt break" with the almost immediate past. The declaration that the right to appointed counsel in state prosecutions, as established in Powell v. Alabama, was not limited to capital cases was, in truth, not a departure from, but an extension of, existing precedent.
The principles declared in Powell and in Betts, however, have had a troubled journey throughout the years that have followed first the one case and then the other. Even by the time of the Betts decision, dictum in at least one of the Court's opinions had indicated that there was an absolute right to the services of counsel in the trial of state capital cases. [n1] Such dicta continued to appear in subsequent decisions, [n2] and any lingering doubts were finally eliminated by the holding of Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52.
In noncapital cases, the "special circumstances" rule has continued to exist in form while its substance has been substantially and steadily eroded. In the first decade after Betts, there were cases in which the Court [p351] found special circumstances to be lacking, but usually by a sharply divided vote. [n3] However, no such decision has been cited to us, and I have found none, after Quicksall v. Michigan, 339 U.S. 660, decided in 1950. At the same time, there have been not a few cases in which special circumstances were found in little or nothing more than the "complexity" of the legal questions presented, although those questions were often of only routine difficulty. [n4] The Court has come to recognize, in other words, that the mere existence of a serious criminal charge constituted, in itself, special circumstances requiring the services of counsel at trial. In truth, the Betts v. Brady rule is no longer a reality.
This evolution, however, appears not to have been fully recognized by many state courts, in this instance charged with the front-line responsibility for the enforcement of constitutional rights. [n5] To continue a rule which is honored by this Court only with lip service is not a healthy thing, and, in the long run, will do disservice to the federal system.
The special circumstances rule has been formally abandoned in capital cases, and the time has now come when it should be similarly abandoned in noncapital cases, at least as to offenses which, as the one involved here, carry the possibility of a substantial prison sentence. (Whether the rule should extend to all criminal cases need not now be decided.) This indeed does no more than to make explicit something that has long since been foreshadowed in our decisions. [p352]
In agreeing with the Court that the right to counsel in a case such as this should now be expressly recognized as a fundamental right embraced in the Fourteenth Amendment, I wish to make a further observation. When we hold a right or immunity, valid against the Federal Government, to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" [n6] and thus valid against the States, I do not read our past decisions to suggest that, by so holding, we automatically carry over an entire body of federal law and apply it in full sweep to the States. Any such concept would disregard the frequently wide disparity between the legitimate interests of the States and of the Federal Government, the divergent problems that they face, and the significantly different consequences of their actions. Cf. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496-508 (separate opinion of this writer). In what is done today, I do not understand the Court to depart from the principles laid down in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, or to embrace the concept that the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the Sixth Amendment as such.
On these premises I join in the judgment of the Court.
1.Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 445.
2.E.g., Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 674; Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437, 441.
3.E.g., Foster v. Illinois, 332 U.S. 134; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640; Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728.
4.E.g., Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471; Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U.S. 697; Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443.
5.See, e.g., Commonwealth ex rel. Simon v. Maroney, 405 Pa. 562, 176 A.2d 94 (1961); Shaffer v. Warden, 211 Md. 635, 126 A.2d 573 (1956); Henderson v. Bannan, 256 F.2d 363 (C.A. 6th Cir.1958).
6.Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325.
DOUGLAS, J., Separate Opinion
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS.
While I join the opinion of the Court, a brief historical resume of the relation between the Bill of Rights and the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment seems pertinent. Since the adoption of that Amendment, ten justices have felt that it protects from infringement by the States the privileges, protections, and safeguards granted by the Bill of Rights. [p346]
Justice Field, the first Justice Harlan, and probably Justice Brewer, took that position in O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 362-363, 370-371, as did Justices BLACK, DOUGLAS, Murphy and Rutledge in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 71-72, 124. And see Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 515-522 (dissenting opinion). That view was also expressed by Justices Bradley and Swayne in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 118-119, 122, and seemingly was accepted by Justice Clifford when he dissented with Justice Field in Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 90, 92. [n1] Unfortunately, it has never commanded a Court. Yet, happily, all constitutional questions are always open. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. And what we do today does not foreclose the matter.
My Brother HARLAN is of the view that a guarantee of the Bill of Rights that is made applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment is a lesser version of that same guarantee as applied to the Federal Government. [n2] Mr. Justice Jackson shared that view. [n3][p347] But that view has not prevailed, [n4] and rights protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are not watered-dow versions of what the Bill of Rights guarantees.
1. Justices Bradley, Swayne and Field emphasized that the first eight Amendments granted citizens of the United States certain privileges and immunities that were protected from abridgment by the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Slaughter-House Cases, supra, at 118-119; O'Neil v. Vermont, supra, at 363. Justices Harlan and Brewer accepted the same theory in the O'Neil case (see id. at 370-371), though Justice Harlan indicated that all "persons," not merely "citizens," were given this protection. Ibid. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 117, Justice Harlan's position was made clear:
In my judgment, immunity from self-incrimination is protected against hostile state action not only by . . . [the Privileges and Immunities Clause], but [also] by . . . [the Due Process Clause].
Justice Brewer, in joining the opinion of the Court, abandoned the view that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the States in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581.
2.See Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 501, 506; Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 169.
3.Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288. Cf. the opinions of Justices Holmes and Brandeis in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 672, and Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372.
4. The cases are collected by MR. JUSTICE BLACK in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 530. And see Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 274-276.
The case you are viewing is cited by the following Supreme Court decisions.
Anthony Louis TACON, Petitioner, v. State of ARIZONA.
Thomas A. BAREFOOT, Petitioner, v. W.J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
Ruth RUSHEN, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Johnny SPAIN.
Herman SOLEM, Warden, Petitioner v. Norman STUMES.
Richard Sherman WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA
Charles E. STRICKLAND, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, et al., Petitioners v. David Leroy WASHINGTON.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Harrison P. CRONIC.
Robert FLANAGAN, James Keweshan, Joseph Landis and Thomas McNamee, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. William GOUVEIA et al.
John D. ARNOLD v. SOUTH CAROLINA. John H. PLATH v. SOUTH CAROLINA.
Ralph W. EVITTS, Superintendent, Blackburn Correctional Complex and David L. Armstrong, Attorney General, Petitioners, v. Keith E. LUCEY.
Glen Burton AKE, Petitioner v. OKLAHOMA.
Harry N. WALTERS, Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, et al., Appellants v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS et al.
MAINE, Petitioner, v. Perley MOULTON, Jr.
Daniel VASQUEZ, Warden, Petitioner v. Booker T. HILLERY, Jr.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. James C. LANE and Dennis R. Lane. James C. LANE and Dennis R. Lane, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.
DELAWARE, Petitioner, v. Robert E. VAN ARSDALL.
Irwin I. KIMMELMAN, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al., Petitioners v. Neil MORRISON.
Jimmy C. ROSE, Warden, Petitioner v. Stanley Barham CLARK.
Donald Wayne THOMAS v. Ralph KEMP, Warden
Chester Levon MAXWELL v. FLORIDA
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Jose MENDOZA-LOPEZ and Angel Landeros-Quinones.
John T. SATTERWHITE, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.
Mark Erick WHEAT, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.
Ellis T. McCOY, etc., Appellant v. COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN, DISTRICT 1.
Donald Ray PERRY, Petitioner v. William D. LEEKE, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
Steven A. PENSON, Petitioner v. OHIO.
NotFound v. NotFound
Elisa CHAN, et al., Petitioners v. KOREAN AIR LINES, LTD.
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al., Petitioners v. Joseph M. GIARRATANO, Johnny Watkins, Jr., and Richard T. Boggs, et al.
James SAFFLE, Warden, et al., Petitioners v. Robyn Leroy PARKS.
PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Cleopatra HASLIP et al.
ARIZONA, Petitioner v. Oreste C. FULMINANTE.
Ellis B. WRIGHT, Jr., Warden and Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia, Petitioners, v. Frank Robert WEST, Jr.
GEORGIA, Petitioner v. Thomas McCOLLUM, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum.
Leonel Torres HERRERA, Petitioner v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
Todd A. BRECHT, Petitioner v. Gordon A. ABRAHAMSON, Superintendent, Dodge Correctional Institution.
John SULLIVAN, Petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.
Jerry D. GILMORE, Petitioner, v. Kevin TAYLOR.
Salvador GODINEZ, Warden, Petitioner v. Richard Allan MORAN.
Henry HARPER, et al., Petitioners, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION.
GRAY v. NETHERLAND, WARDEN Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
M. L. B., Petitioner, v. S. L. J., Individually and as Next Friend of the Minor Children, S. L. J. and M. L. J., et ux.
Joyce B. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Joseph Roger O'DELL, III, Petitioner, v. J.D. NETHERLAND, Warden, et al.
OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners, v. Eugene WOODARD.
John R. GAGNON, Warden, Petitioner, v. Gerald H. SCARPELLI.
State of MICHIGAN, Petitioner, v. Leroy PAYNE.
Ronald Dale WARDIUS, Petitioner, v. State of OREGON.
James Roy GOSA, Petitioner, v. J. A. MAYDEN, Warden. John W. WARNER, Secretary of the Navy, Petitioner, v. John W. FLEMINGS.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Charles J. ASH, Jr.
Prince Eric FULLER, Petitioner, v. State of OREGON.
Fred R. ROSS and North Carolina, Petitioners, v. Claude Franklin MOFFITT.
Clifford HERRING, Appellant, v. State of NEW YORK.
Anthony Pasquall FARETTA, Petitioner, v. State of CALIFORNIA.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Henry Ogle WATSON.
J. William MIDDENDORF, II, et al., Petitioners, v. Daniel Edward HENRY et al. Daniel Edward HENRY et al., Petitioners, v. J. William MIDDENDORF, II, Individually and in his Capacity as Secretary of the Navy, et al.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Roy MANDUJANO.
W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. Harry Lee WILLIAMS.
John A. GEDERS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Lonnie NORTH, Appellant, v. C. B. RUSSELL et al.
Aubrey SCOTT, Petitioner, v. State of ILLINOIS.
State of NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner, v. Willie Thomas BUTLER.
George Calvin LEWIS, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Julius T. CUYLER, Superintendent, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. John SULLIVAN.
Thomas BALDASAR, Petitioner, v. State of ILLINOIS.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Kelvin HASTING et al.
John Paul MORRIS, Warden, Petitioner, v. Joseph D. SLAPPY.
Winston M. HOLLOWAY et al., Petitioners, v. State of ARKANSAS.
Ensio Ruben LAKESIDE, Petitioner, v. State of OREGON.
State of MARYLAND v. Victor Dennis MARZULLO
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Petitioner, v. John SYKES.
Lou V. BREWER, Warden, Petitioner, v. Robert Anthony WILLIAMS, aka Anthony Erthel Williams.
Vernon Lee BOUNDS, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Robert (Bobby) SMITH et al.
Dennis Councle McGAUTHA, Petitioner, v. State of CALIFORNIA. James Edward CRAMPTON, Petitioner, v. State of OHIO.
Paul J. BELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. R. H. BURSON, Director, Georgia Department of Public Safety.
Charles W. BRITT, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA.
Philip J. PICARD, Petitioner, v. James J. CONNOR.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Forrest S. TUCKER.
William Henry FURMAN, Petitioner, v. State of GEORGIA. Lucious JACKSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of GEORGIA. Elmer BRANCH, Petitioner, v. State of TEXAS.
George William MILTON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Florida Divisions of Corrections.
Jon Richard ARGERSINGER, Petitioner, v. Raymond HAMLIN, Sheriff, Leon County, Florida.
James R. JAMES, Judicial Administrator, et al., Appellants, v. David E. STRANGE.
Billy J. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. State of LOUISIANA.
Nathaniel JOHNSON v. State of NEBRASKA.
Frank Steven DORMAN v. UNITED STATES.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. TEXAS, PETITIONER v. RAYMOND LEVI COBB
MICKENS v. TAYLOR, WARDEN.
ALABAMA v. SHELTON.
Edward M. FAY, Warden, et al., Petitioners, v. Charles NOIA.
Marvin DOUGHTY v. E. L. MAXWELL.
Elbert H. PATTERSON v. WARDEN.
Howard Virgil Lee DOUGLAS v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
William DOUGLAS and Bennie Will Meyes, Petitioners, v. The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Albert WALKER v. Ross V. RANDOLPH.
Bichard Frank LINDNER, v. Elbert NASH.
Felix Marvin JORDAN v. WIMAN
Ernest Frank HARTSFIELD v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Clarence TYLER v. NORTH CAROLINA.
Roy E. LaFORGE v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Walter TULL v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Wilbert RIDEAU, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA.
German S. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
George D. KER et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
John Paul HERB v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Francis C. HOLMES v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Allen BAXLEY, Jr. v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Clint HUGGINS v. Robert R. RAINES.
Harold L. PALMER, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.
Albert E. BARNES v. NORTH CAROLINA.
John W. CREWS v. WAINWRIGHT.
Elmer BANKS v. WAINWRIGHT.
Clyde PICKELSIMER, Jr. v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT. Martin A. MIHELCICH, petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. Donald COWAN, petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections of Florida. Joseph R. DUMOND, petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. R bert Clayton SHARP, petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. William E. BAKER, petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. Sidney James HEARD, petitioner, v. L.L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. Arthel CAMPBELL, petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. [2-Continued] Lafayette E. MITCHELL, petitioner, v. L.L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections. Roy KITCHENS, petitioner, v.
Winston MASSIAH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Harold Allen SPENCER, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA ex rel. VIRGINIA STATE BAR.
Hilliard SANDERS v. ALABAMA.
CONNECTICUT, Petitioner v. Lindsay B. JOHNSON.
Gladys BODDIE et al., Appellants, v. State of CONNECTICUT et al.
Clarence WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Joseph ELKANICH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Lucien Candy MASSEY v. State of GEORGIA.
Fred T. MACKEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
James Melvin KITCHENS v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden.
Abby Gail LASSITER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Hazel MORRISON.
Jim ROSE, Warden, Petitioner v. Noah Harrison LUNDY.
Bob Granville POINTER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Jackie Hamilton GAINEY.
Billie Sol ESTES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS.
Estelle T. GRISWOLD et al. Appellants, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
L. W. HOLT et al., Petitioners, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
Victor LINKLETTER, Petitioner, v. Victor G. WALKER, Warden.
Paul V. CASE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA.
Dan TEHAN, Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. Edgar I. SHOTT, Jr.
SWIFT & COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Don J. WICKHAM, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of New York.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Walter F. TELLIER et ux.
Ernesto A. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA. Michael VIGNERA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW YORK. Carl Calvin WESTOVER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Roy Allen STEWART.
Sylvester JOHNSON and Stanley Cassidy, Petitioners, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Tommy N. GREER v. George BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
TIME, INC., Appellant, v. James J. HILL.
Leon SPENCER, Appellant, v. STATE OF TEXAS. Robert A. BELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS. William Everett REED, Petitioner, v. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
Samuel SPEVACK, Petitioner, v. Solomon A. KLEIN.
John DeJOSEPH, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT.
Robert WINTERS, petitioner, v. Henry BECK, Superintendent of the Pulaski County Penal Farm.
Charles Robert ANDERS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Ruth Elizabeth CHAPMAN and Thomas LeRoy Teale, Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Edward John NOWAKOWSKI, Petitioner, v. James F. MARONEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution.
Peter H. KLOPFER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., Petitioner, v. Wallace BUTTS. The ASSOCIATED PRESS, Petitioner, v. Edwin A. WALKER.
Jackie WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS.
Jesse James GILBERT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Theodore STOVALL, Petitioner, v. Wilfred DENNO, Warden.
Samuel DESIST et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.
State of NORTH CAROLINA et al., Petitioners, v. Clifton A. PEARCE. Curtis M. SIMPSON, Warden, Petitioner, v. William S. RICE.
John Dalmer BENTON, Petitioner, v. State of MARYLAND.
Maurice H. SIGLER, Warden, petitioner, v. Robert William LOSIEAU.
Robert M. BRADY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Jack R. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant, v. John KELLY et al.
Daniel McMANN, Warden, et al., Petitioners, v. Willie RICHARDSON et al.
John Henry COLEMAN and Otis Stephens, Petitioners, v. State of ALABAMA.
Robert BALDWIN, Appellant, v. State of NEW YORK. Johnny WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. State of FLORIDA.
H. Samuel HACKIN v. ARIZONA et al.
James Cleveland BURGETT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS.
Mark F. HELLER, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT.
Jerry Douglas MEMPA, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary. William Earl WALKLING, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES.
Gary DUNCAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA.
Carl Houston ROBERTS v. Lake E. RUSSELL.
Sam DeSTEFANO v. WOODS, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. Frank Anthony CARCERANO v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden.
Richard M. SMITH, Petitioner, v. Fred M. HOOEY, Judge, Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas.
Henry Power ARSENAULT v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Jack D. McCONNELL v. RHAY. Douglas STILTNER v. RHAY.
Nathan JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Wilfred DENNO, Warden.
William MALLOY, Petitioner, v. Patrick J. HOGAN, Sheriff of Hartford County.
Danny ESCOBEDO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Billy Gale HENRY.
Donald L. BROOKS, Petitioner, v. State of TENNESSEE.
Thomas KIRBY, etc., Petitioner, v. State of ILLINOIS.
John ADAMS, Petitioner, v. State of ILLINOIS.
Otis LOPER, Petitioner, v. George J. BETO, Corrections Director, et al.
Jack BOYD v. A. L. DUTTON, Warden.
State of OREGON, Plaintiff, v. John N. MITCHELL, Attorney General of the United States. State of TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. John N. MITCHELL, Attorney General of the United States. UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. State of ARIZONA. UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. State of IDAHO.
Jim GARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA.
Supreme Court Toolbox
Archive of cases


text:
Q: Toolbar overlaps status bar I've got a problem with my status bar which gets overlapped by the toolbar.
I wanted to have the function that when the user scrolles the ListView down, the toolbar disappears behind the status bar so that only the tabs are visible, just like in the WhatsApp and YouTube apps.
To achieve this effect or to get this function I used this line:
app:layout_scrollFlags="scroll|enterAlways"

into my android.support.v7.widget.Toolbar, but know as I said before, the status bar gets overlapped by the toolbar.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout
    xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
    xmlns:app="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res-auto"
    xmlns:tools="http://schemas.android.com/tools"
    android:id="@+id/main_content"
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent"
    android:fitsSystemWindows="true"
    tools:context=".MainActivity">

    <android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout
        android:id="@+id/appbar"
        android:layout_width="match_parent"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content"
        android:paddingTop="@dimen/appbar_padding_top"
        android:theme="@style/AppTheme.AppBarOverlay">

        <android.support.v7.widget.Toolbar
            android:id="@+id/toolbar"
            android:layout_width="match_parent"
            android:layout_height="?attr/actionBarSize"
            app:layout_scrollFlags="scroll|enterAlways"
            android:background="?attr/colorPrimary"
            app:popupTheme="@style/AppTheme.PopupOverlay">

        </android.support.v7.widget.Toolbar>

        <android.support.design.widget.TabLayout
            android:id="@+id/tabs"
            android:layout_width="match_parent"
            android:layout_height="wrap_content" />

    </android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout>

    <android.support.v4.view.ViewPager
        android:id="@+id/container"
        android:layout_width="match_parent"
        android:layout_height="match_parent"
        app:layout_behavior="@string/appbar_scrolling_view_behavior" />

</android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout>

Thankful for any help!
UPDATE:
v21\styles.xml
<resources>>
    <style name="AppTheme.NoActionBar">
        <item name="windowActionBar">false</item>
        <item name="windowNoTitle">true</item>
        <item name="android:windowDrawsSystemBarBackgrounds">true</item>
        <item name="android:statusBarColor">@android:color/transparent</item>
    </style>
</resources>

styles.xml
<resources>

    <!-- Base application theme. -->
    <style name="AppTheme" parent="Theme.AppCompat.Light.DarkActionBar">
        <!-- Customize your theme here. -->
        <item name="colorPrimary">@color/colorPrimary</item>
        <item name="colorPrimaryDark">@color/colorPrimaryDark</item>
        <item name="colorAccent">@color/colorAccent</item>
    </style>
    <style name="AppTheme.NoActionBar">
        <item name="windowActionBar">false</item>
        <item name="windowNoTitle">true</item>
    </style>
    <style name="AppTheme.AppBarOverlay" parent="ThemeOverlay.AppCompat.Dark.ActionBar" />
    <style name="AppTheme.PopupOverlay" parent="ThemeOverlay.AppCompat.Light" />

</resources>

A: in v21\styles.xml
remove
<item name="android:statusBarColor">@android:color/transparent</item>

A: Try add android:fitsSystemWindows="true" to android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout or @style/AppTheme.PopupOverlay style

A: This works for me to get a white overlay on device status bar (problem after update in question)
I changed:
<item name="android:windowDrawsSystemBarBackgrounds">true</item>

to
<item name="android:windowDrawsSystemBarBackgrounds">false</item>

in my styles.xml file

A: try making android:layout_height="?attr/actionBarSize" for  android.support.v7.widget.Toolbar

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Ah, "genre film." Like "world music," this vague catchall means a little less with every passing year, as the arbitrary walls of taste continue to fall. At its conception, it was exactly what it sounds like, referring to any picture that clearly lumped itself into a genre, so that they could be distinct from the more dignified umbrella of "drama." In the present day, there's plenty of disagreement among critics and academics about what this pair of words should actually means, many hoping to do away with the notion entirely and let movies be movies. But for the purposes of this list, the operating definition covers thrillers, sci-fi, and horror.


text:
Do not take Qsymia if you are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, or become pregnant during Qsymia treatment; have glaucoma; have thyroid problems (hyperthyroidism); are taking certain medicines called monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) or have taken MAOIs in the past 14 days; are allergic to topiramate, sympathomimetic amines such as phentermine, or any of the ingredients in Qsymia. See the end of the Medication Guide for a complete list of ingredients in Qsymia.
The Yoga Sutras are also influenced by the Sramana traditions of Buddhism and Jainism, and may represent a further Brahmanical attempt to adopt yoga from the Sramana traditions.[129] As noted by Larson, there are numerous parallels in the concepts in ancient Samkhya, Yoga and Abhidharma Buddhist schools of thought, particularly from 2nd century BCE to 1st century AD.[139] Patanjali's Yoga Sutras is a synthesis of these three traditions. From Samkhya, the Yoga Sutras adopt the "reflective discernment" (adhyavasaya) of prakrti and purusa (dualism), its metaphysical rationalism, as well its three epistemic methods of gaining reliable knowledge.[139] From Abhidharma Buddhism's idea of nirodhasamadhi, suggests Larson, Yoga Sutras adopt the pursuit of altered state of awareness, but unlike Buddhism's concept of no self nor soul, Yoga is physicalist and realist like Samkhya in believing that each individual has a self and soul.[139] The third concept Yoga Sutras synthesize into its philosophy is the ancient ascetic traditions of meditation and introspection, as well as the yoga ideas from middle Upanishads such as Katha, Shvetashvatara and Maitri.[139]
According to Zimmer, Yoga philosophy is reckoned to be part of the non-Vedic system, which also includes the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy, Jainism and Buddhism:[46] "[Jainism] does not derive from Brahman-Aryan sources, but reflects the cosmology and anthropology of a much older pre-Aryan upper class of northeastern India [Bihar] – being rooted in the same subsoil of archaic metaphysical speculation as Yoga, Sankhya, and Buddhism, the other non-Vedic Indian systems."[61][note 6]
This terse definition hinges on the meaning of three Sanskrit terms. I. K. Taimni translates it as "Yoga is the inhibition (nirodhaḥ) of the modifications (vṛtti) of the mind (citta)".[142]Swami Vivekananda translates the sutra as "Yoga is restraining the mind-stuff (Citta) from taking various forms (Vrittis)."[143] Edwin Bryant explains that, to Patanjali, "Yoga essentially consists of meditative practices culminating in attaining a state of consciousness free from all modes of active or discursive thought, and of eventually attaining a state where consciousness is unaware of any object external to itself, that is, is only aware of its own nature as consciousness unmixed with any other object."[144][145][146]
Various yogic groups had become prominent in Punjab in the 15th and 16th century, when Sikhism was in its nascent stage. Compositions of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, describe many dialogues he had with Jogis, a Hindu community which practiced yoga. Guru Nanak rejected the austerities, rites and rituals connected with Hatha Yoga. He propounded the path of Sahaja yoga or Nama yoga (meditation on the name) instead.[201] The Guru Granth Sahib states:
In 1989 and 2003, the Vatican issued two documents: Aspects of Christian meditation and "A Christian reflection on the New Age," that were mostly critical of eastern and New Age practices. The 2003 document was published as a 90-page handbook detailing the Vatican's position.[286] The Vatican warned that concentration on the physical aspects of meditation "can degenerate into a cult of the body" and that equating bodily states with mysticism "could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations." Such has been compared to the early days of Christianity, when the church opposed the gnostics' belief that salvation came not through faith but through a mystical inner knowledge.[280] The letter also says, "one can see if and how [prayer] might be enriched by meditation methods developed in other religions and cultures"[287] but maintains the idea that "there must be some fit between the nature of [other approaches to] prayer and Christian beliefs about ultimate reality."[280] Some[which?] fundamentalist Christian organizations consider yoga to be incompatible with their religious background, considering it a part of the New Age movement inconsistent with Christianity.[288]
In 2008 between US$33 billion and $55 billion was spent annually in the US on weight-loss products and services, including medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, with weight-loss centers taking between 6 and 12 percent of total annual expenditure. Over $1.6 billion a year was spent on weight-loss supplements. About 70 percent of Americans' dieting attempts are of a self-help nature.[23][24] https://buzzingofferselfhelp.tumblr.com/

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Include any additional dates and times in the "Other Details and Additional Dates" box.
Please indicate the approximate start time of your event.
Please indicate the approximate end time of your event.
If you do not see the specific setup your event needs, please select the special option and include specific details in the "Other Details and Additional Dates" box.
Audio-visual equipment must be requested at least one week prior to scheduled event. Some equipment requires additional charges.
Please enter a number less than or equal to 75.
Please enter a number less than or equal to 5.
Please enter a number less than or equal to 60.
There is a $5.00 charge for each easel.
If AV needed in rooms 3106, 3107, 3108, 3110, 3111, 3114, 3115, 3125, 2200C, 2200D a TV Cart is required. 3519, 3103, 3700, 3104, 2408 have built in AV systems.
If AV needed in rooms 3106, 3107, 3108, 3110, 3111, 3114, 3115, 3125, 2200C, 2200D a TV Cart is required. Please select TV Cart option above. 3519, 3103, 3700, 3104, 2408 have built in AV systems. Please select this option.
Use to indicate arrangement of equipment, etc.
Please select where the food is being purchased from for this event. Please visit http://riskmanagement.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2017/05/Approved-Caterers-List.pdf for a list of approved UA caterers.
As a member of The University of Alabama community, I will pursue knowledge, act with fairness, integrity and respect; promote equity and inclusion; foster individual and civic responsibility; and strive for excellence in all I do.
I have read and agree to comply with all University of Alabama policies governing the use of the Ferguson Student Center Facilities.
This is ONLY a request. The Ferguson Student Center reserves the right to change room assignments or setups to accommodate the greatest number of customers.


text:
Supporters attend big reveal of young man's weight loss
Judith McGinnis
While too many think weight loss can be a quick and easy, Andy Albertson knows better.
Determination, will power and years-long commitment were the baseline of Albertson's life change.
Tuesday night friends and family gathered at The Maplewood for a big reveal. Andy's been quiet about his loss of 175 pounds. Rather than post to Facebook, his journey is the focus of a documentary.
"I started on my own for the first 20 pounds. I don't remember what day I quit eating fast food," Andy said, taking a few minutes before hitting the gym at Bill Bartley Branch YMCA. "Then I got with Jerry (Hughes) who put me on a nutrition plan for five months."
"Andy is an inspiration in several categories," said Hughes, head of Hughes Training and Nutrition. "His hard work and dedication set a good example for all those people who think they can get a quick fix to weight loss. There is no fast solution."
Although early sports physicals referred to Andy as a "healthy kid," by the time he started 7th grade increased cholesterol levels were identified.
Watching the recent changes in Andy's life, his mom, Mary, says she was surprised to see her son's constant focus on a healthier diet.
"He was eating things I'd never seen him eat before, broccoli and a lot of other vegetables," said Mary, a self-confessed classic Southern cook. "He kept on the same meal plans every day. His mindset changed."
"And his palate changed. Some people think that anyone with this strong a commitment is obsessed," said Hughes. "It's been said that obsessed is a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated."
In the beginning Andy, 22, had a resting heart rate of 85 (beats per minute). Now it's 40. The heart, Hughes explained, is like a car. Higher heart rates can put too much wear and tear on it.
There was no getting Andy off the daily rhythm of diet and exercise. He passed on a family trip to Mexico; when traveling he packed a cooler with his own meals.
His menus include: oatmeal and cooked egg whites for breakfast; a pre-workout protein shake; a post-workout shake and fruit (usually an apple); chicken and asparagus or broccoli for dinner.
"Sometimes I throw some yogurt in there," Andy said with a grin.
The Albertsons, including Andy's dad Darrell, are a host family to three Wildcat's hockey players. While players devoured buffalo wings on Super Bowl Sunday, Andy crushed high protein Quest Chips, coated a chicken breast with them, baked it and dipped it in "a little buffalo sauce."
Mary says she saw Andy's weight gain increase after he graduated high school, started at Vernon College, and picked up more fast food.
"I began to ask myself, what is his future, what kind of jobs
can he get?" said Mary, who is now visiting the gym regularly and taking on her own weight challenge. "We've had long talks and I told Andy I'd done him a disservice. Andy will break the cycle. My part is to get parents to tell their kids, 'don't let this happen to you'."
"Some people I've met have told me that once I've met my goals, as I get older I won't stick with it," said Andy. "This is the something I will always do, a lifestyle that will always be part of me.
The story of how Andy Albertson lost 176 pounds.


text:
50 Best Soccer Movies of All Time (Including Football)
By Hrvoje Milakovic / October 16, 2021 October 16, 2021
From pillar to post and across the globe, soccer has become a popular sports game. Not only football keeps you active and healthy, but it also protects you from lethargy and several diseases. Watching soccer movies provides enough entertainment for you and pumps you to play the game. You will get awareness related to every aspect of this sport by watching different kinds of movies related to football. If you are a football lover, you should watch football movies to help you motivate and stay active.
There are tons of soccer movies that you can watch depending on your choice. You will get a lesson at the end of each football movie. Some movies are not famous due to the lack of clarity, popularity, and many other factors. On the contrary, several football movies are worldwide popular and will teach you a lesson.
Best Soccer (Football) Movies
1. Maradona (2019)
2. Football Factory (2004)
3. Escape to Victory (1981)
4. Mean Machine (2001)
5. Looking For Eric (2009)
6. The Damned United (2009)
7. Mike Bassett: England Manager (2001)
8. Fever Pitch (2005)
9. Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006)
10. The Goal: Trilogy (2005)
11. There's Only One Jimmy Grimble (2000)
12. The Game Of Their Lives (2005)
13. Offside (2006)
14. Goal! The Dream Begins (2007)
15. Green Street (2005)
16. Bend It Like Beckham (2002)
17. Shaolin Soccer (2001)
18. Goal! Taking on the World (2009)
19. Kicking & Screaming (1995)
20. The Miracle of Bern (2003)
21. A Shot At Glory (2000)
22. Pele (2016)
23. United (2011)
24. Next Goal Wins (2014)
25. The Two Escobars (2010)
26. She's The Man (2006)
27. Rudy (1993)
28. Remember the Titans (2000)
29. We are Marshall (2006)
30. The Waterboy (1998)
31. The Cup (1999)
32. The Match (1999)
33. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery (1939)
34. Ladybugs (1992)
35. When Saturday Comes (1996)
36. Lessons of A Dream (2011)
37. Captain (2019)
38. We are the Champions (2005)
39. Montevideo: Taste Of A Dream (2010)
40. Gracie (2007)
41. Her Best Move (2007)
42. The Four Year Plan (2011)
43. Kicking it (2008)
44. Soccer Killer (2017)
45. Brother (2010)
46. Eleven Men Out (2005)
47. The Champions (1983)
48. Mario (2018)
49. Let The Girls Play (2018)
50. Two Half Times In Hell (1961)
Football has become a popular sport around the nook and corner of the world. If you are looking for the best soccer (football) movies, this is the right place for you. In this article, you will learn about the 50 best football movies. You will also learn about the story, purpose, and ending of each movie. You can choose any movie from the given list if you want to watch so.
Here, I will enlist the top 20 best soccer movies. And then I will explain all the 50 movies in detail subsequently.
Escape to Victory
Mean Machine
Looking For Eric
The Damned United
Mike Bassett: England Manager
Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait
The Goal: Trilogy
There's Only One Jimmy Grimble
The Game Of Their Lives
Goal! The Dream Begins
Bend It Like Beckham
Goal!
The Miracle of Bern
The movie is all about the life of a passionate and top football player across the globe.
Diego Armando Maradona is a famous football player of the 1980s.
Maradona got a lot of fame due to his excellent performance in football history.
Maradona was an Argentina top football player who never compromised on his performance towards football.
The documentary is all about Maradona's journey to Naples.
Maradona found that place as one of the most dangerous cities in Europe.
Maradona can control the ball in every situation. You will also see that how Maradona has created different scoring opportunities.
Having a look at Maradona's career is enough to know about the victories and achievements of Maradona.
Maradona won World Cups for Argentine, South Italy, Naples, and many others.
Maradona got several suspensions due to the drug addiction.
Football Factory depicts a real story of Football hooliganism.
The movie revolves around four men (Tommy, Bill, Billy Bright, and Zeberdee) that belong to the working class.
Football Factory is a kind of English obsession with football violence. You will see that the documentary is all about a male (Chelsea).
Chelsea's life revolves around violence, alcohol, drugs, and sex.
Here the four characters with extreme thoughts and actions follow Chelsea and his life.
But their efforts to follow the footsteps of Chelsea ended in smoke.
At the end of the movie, all the four men lived their lives on different terms. Tommy joined his old friends' crew. Billy Bright was arrested for seven years in a murder case. Bill moved to Australia. And Zeberdee met with an accident and died.
Escape to victory is all that a football lover would love to watch among the best football movies.
During World War II, a match was played between the prisoners of war (POW) and the Germans.
POWs accepted the challenge and played with full power.
There were two options for the POWs either to lose and get freedom in Switzerland or to win the match and face severe firing.
Being the winner of the match, POWs faced severe firings and shots.
All the POWs thought that the victory would be a way to escape and get freedom from the camps.
Soccer enthusiastic Karl Von Steiner ( the head of the German POWs) organized the match between both parties.
Sooner or later, POWs have to face the firing by keeping an escape to victory as their secret agenda.
The movie reflects the life of an Ex England soccer player (Danny Meehan).
Danny faced a prisoner life after fixing a match against the Germans.
The story starts after Danny went to prison.
There Danny raised a team against the wardens and the other official figures of the prison.
Mean Machine is a British comedy football movie.
Being a disgraced football player, Danny fixed a match between the prison's guards and the prisoners.
The prison was full of thieves, murderers, and other impolite people. All the prisoners went against the administration.
Danny tried a lot to take revenge on them for making Danny's life like hell.
The movie revolves around Eric Daniel Pierre Cantona (a famous and arduous French footballer).
Cantona has received the title of the best football player of the generation.
The film is all about the nature of fanaticism itself. You will also see that the movie focuses on real-life struggle rather than on a pitch.
Several things made Cantona worry.
Cantona was suffering from a strained relationship with his ex-wife.
Cantona faced a bitter relationship, but he also found his son indulged in smoking and drugs addiction.
All the things made Cantona look for Eric. The film is far more than a football match.
You will see that looking for Erik touches the tragedies of life.
The Damned United is a fictional drama about the life of an ill-fated Brian Clough.
Clough was a football player with a volatile and eccentric temperament.
As every coin has two sides, so does Clough's life. There were two sides to Clough's life. The darker side is all about his career during the 44 days stay as the Manager of Leeds United in 1974.
Being an unpopular team, Leeds United faced several insecurities during Clough's stay as the Manager.
Things turned out to be against the victory. It has become the talk of the town that Clough was not a right fit for this post.
As the name suggests, Mike Bassett was the new manager of the British football team. Mike got this position as the previous manager has faced a severe heart attack.
Mike was more ambitious and announced that the British team would win the World Cup soon.
Initially, Mike was the manager of the lower football league and has won the Mr. Clutch Cup.
Mike made his team ready for qualifying for the World cup.
Soon Mike qualified for the World Cup and left for Brazil for the final tournament.
But all of Mike's efforts ended in smoke. England didn't win.
Mike had to face a lot of humiliation along with the unexpected defeat.
The movie is a kind of romantic comedy. Fever Pitch is all about a school teacher who fell in love with a wealthy businesswoman.
The couple (Ben and Lindsey) was spending a happy life until the baseball season begins.
Boston Red Sox was the true and first love of Ben (a soccer lover).
Ben was a diehard lover of football and baseball Red Sox.
Here Ben chose Boston red sox over his love (the businesswoman).
The movie will give you a lesson that true love demands sacrifices.
Ben chose Boston Red Sox as baseball was his first love.
The movie is a perfect choice for football players who want a real-life story.
Here, an ex Madrid football player (Zidane) accepts a Liga clash against Villarreal in 2005.
The match was between Real Madrid and Villarreal during Spain La Liga Clash.
Being violent and misconduct during the match, Zidane faced humiliation. Zidane got a suspension from the World Cup final match.
The film highlights the bad events of Zidane's life.
The goal is a football film series that consists of three prominent films.
The three films that are a part of this series are Goal (goal 1), Living the dream (goal 2), and Taking on the world (goal 3).
The Goal: Trilogy depicts the story of a Mexican immigrant (Santiago Munez).
Santiago was a gardener by profession, but he always dreamt of showing his talents on the pitch.
Santiago tried his utmost to get that opportunity during his career.
One day, Santiago got an opportunity for a trial. Santiago made his name in his adopted nation.
After that, Santiago got a place in the Champions League. The journey of Santiago starts there.
The movie is all about a teenage boy (Jimmy Grimble).
Jimmy was full of talents and powers, but the lack of confidence made him far away from real fame.
Jimmy faced severe bullying at school. Jimmy also hated his mother's boyfriend.
Jimmy started playing football in his school. Jimmy led the school football team as well.
All these things paved the way for achieving the local school cup.
The movie depicts the wonderful story of a soccer match in the 1950s.
Being the best team (Gerard Butler, Wes Bentley, Jay Rodan), the Americans went to Brazil to compete.
Americans defeated England with a slide victory.
The thing that made the Americans win was the British squad of 1950.
Offside is a bit different film when compared with the other football films.
In this film, a group of girls from Iran wanted to watch the World Cup qualifying match.
Intoxicated with their dream, all the girls forgot that the Iranian law doesn't allow them to do so.
There was gender discrimination in Iran when it comes to entering the stadium.
The reason behind that prohibition was Violence and chaos that has a strong connection with the female gender.
The movie is a part of the original Goal: Trilogy. Here, the journey of Santiago takes a new twist.
After facing a defeat in Brazil, Santiago returned to England.
Santiago made his way to impress Newcastle with the amazing performance of his team.
Santiago had to face several difficult times during his journey.
His half-brother came to know about their relationship. Santiago's girlfriend left him alone due to fake publicity.
All these things made Santiago win the match.
Santiago qualifies for the Champions League.
At the start of a match, Santiago hits a free-kick and wins the match.
Green street is a football hooligan film that depicts an American college student (Matt Buckner).
Harvard expelled Matt from the college due to some reasons.
After being expelled from the college, Matt made his way to his married daughter.
Matt met with his sister, sister's husband, and the brother of his sister's husband (Peter).
Peter and Matt became good friends. There started the real-life of Matt. Matt entered a world where football was no less than a dream.
Being an outsider, peter's team members never accepted Matt.
Bend it like Beckham is a film that focuses on the two main characters.
Here, two girls (18 years old) aimed at becoming professional soccer.
As the name implies, both the girls bend the rules to become professional soccer.
Against the will of their parents, the girls joined the local football team.
Then the girls made their way to the top of the league.
Shaolin soccer is a Hong Kong comedy film.
Shaolin was an important figure and a prominent figure in China's commercial revolution.
In this film, one of Shaolin's fans reunites with his team members. The purpose was to raise a solid and robust football team.
The ultimate aim was to use their martial arts skills to play football. They also wanted to bring Shaolin Kung fu to the masses.
The movie is a bit different from the first two parts of the series.
Here, the role of Santiago is no more than an ordinary actor.
Adams and Charlie have taken the role of Santiago as Santiago has become a member of the national football team.
Soon the whole team met with a car accident and then returned to England.
There the team qualified for the knock-out match against Sweden.
Things were going in the right direction until they faced a defeat.
The film ends with an important note. Santiago embraced his dream with tears rolling down his face.
The movie is all about comedy.
In this movie, a group of college graduates is trying to enjoy their lives before diving into the ocean of professional life.
All the members of the group didn't want to leave the college due to different reasons.
Only one of them has a plan for her future life.
The phrase "Kicking and Screaming" depicts that all have to give up on their dreams. Some of the group members have to join their family business.
The author has related the theme of the film with the football match.
The movie is all about a miracle that happened in the life of a young boy.
The film tells us the story of a German family. The family was waiting for their lost person.
There were many Prisoners of War (POW) in Germany at that time.
The young boy and his family had lost their father during war days. Their father was one of the POWs.
Soon the 1954 World Cup final in Bern, Switzerland, made him happy with the news that the country will soon release the prisoners of war.
That was a miracle for the German family. That's why the film named The Miracle of Bern.
A shot at Glory has its roots in a bitter relationship between a father and his daughter.
Here a soccer coach, Gordon McCloud, is searching for a talented and skilled football player for his team.
Gordon found an undeniable player (Jackie) for his team.
Jackie was famous for his football skills and was notorious for being a wrong fit when it comes to playing with a team.
Jackie was also the son-in-law of Gordon.
All these things made Gordon not take Jackie in his team.
But Gordon made Jackie, his team member due to the endless skills of Jackie.
The movie revolves around a poor boy that lived in a Brazilian neighborhood.
Being poor, Pele did all the things to feed his family.
Pele was not only the breadwinner of his family but also a diehard lover of soccer.
Pele wanted to pursue his talents and skills in football.
The ultimate aim of Pele's life was to become an international player and icon.
Pele didn't give up, and soon his efforts bore fruit.
Pele became an international icon with his powerful footballing skills and perseverance.
The movie is very well a true story of Manchester United's legendary Busby Babes.
The team has got the name of the youngest team to win the Football League.
Things were going in favor of the winning team but soon faded with a tragedy.
Manchester team met with an air crash, and almost eight team members died at the spot.
The movie is all about the endless efforts of a Dutch soccer coach.
American Samoa's national football team was in search of a great coach.
The team wanted to qualify for the FIFA 2014 World Cup. But the lack of a skilled coach made the team worry about their future.
Thomas Rongen (a Dutch soccer coach) consented to make the team qualify for the upcoming World Cup.
You will see how one of the weakest football teams in this world turned into the best team.
American Samoa's national football team qualified for the World cup and won the match.
Pablo and Andres are the two main and leading characters of this football movie.
Here, both men belonged to different places and teams. But soon, Pablo found a kind of connection between Andres and him.
Pablo was famous as the top-notch drug dealer while Andres had won the 1994 World Cup.
Both Pablo and Andres had a craze about football and became professional soccer.
You will also learn how Pablo used the football platform for his vested interests.
The movie is all about a girl who feels that her football team is no more.
Due to such apprehensions, the girl decides to join the boy's football team and live on her terms.
The girl faced rejection from the team coach.
As a result, she decided to dress up like her brother (Sebastian).
As soon as she takes up his brother's get up, there arises a more complicated situation.
What happens next is full of suspense. You need to watch the whole movie for this purpose.
Rudy is a 1993 football film that tells us about the real-life story of a young man.
The young man was passionate and eager to play football to fulfill his dreams.
But he was not of that age to play a football match.
Keeping aside all the odds, the young man fulfilled his dream and played for Notre Dame.
Not only did the young man play for Notre Dame, but he also qualified and won the match.
Hard work and consistent struggles always pay off.
If you are looking for a great football movie with real-life lessons, this is the right choice. The Titans are all about a football team in which people from different races join to form a team.
As a racially integrated unit, the team portrayed the power of sports (football) as a strong unifying force.
Here the team members forgot their ethnicity and played as a single body to achieve their goals.
That's what football made in the history of the bitter race differences.
The movie has a strong connection with the football game.
You will see that almost all the members of a football team faced a severe plane crash.
Some of them remain alive and survived the incident.
The team's coach and the surviving players took an oath.
All have decided to keep the football game alive with the addition of new members to the team.
The strong message that you will learn from the movie is proof of the quality of the film.
The movie revolves around a college football team. The football team was in search of some new members to add to their team.
Soon the team came to know that the College waterboy has the ability and hidden talents to become a team member.
It would be an absolute joy to watch for you as the movie is a complete mix of football match practice and real fun.
Palden and Nylma were the two Tibetan young boys. Both have the craze to become football players all around the world.
Both fled to Tibet and went into exile.
That thing made Palden and Nylma sad about their future.
Soon the World Cup soccer matches started.
Palden and Nylma also wanted to watch the World Cup.
The monastery arranged a satellite for all the people in exile. That's the way Palden and Nylma watched the World Cup.
The movie is all about the rivalry between the two pub holders.
Here, you will see that there were two different soccer teams.
Each team has the dream to occupy the whole pub. The rivalry between the two soccer teams was a century old.
Both teams wanted to forget their hatred once and for all.
The two Scottish pubs organized a match. The winner of the match will take over the pub of the defeating team.
The movie is all about a soccer match in which one of the footballers has poisoned. During a soccer match against Arsenal at Highbury, John Doyce was given the poison.
John's murder put a pause on football matches.
The police started investigating the murderer.
The movie took several turns on the way to finding the real culprit.
The movie is all about love. In this movie, Chester Lee (a prominent figure) wanted to get a promotion.
The reason behind that promotion was his love, Bess.
There were two options for Chester.
Chester had to coach a girl's soccer team.
If Chester successfully coaches the team, then he will get a promotion. And that thing will help him marry his sweetheart.
Chester was not good at soccer, that's why Chester asked for his son's help.
But soon, the reality came out, and Chester's entire dream vanished.
The movie is all about a regular drinking man (Jimmy).
Jimmy wanted to become international soccer but was unable to do so. Jimmy has been addicted to drinking, and this addiction preventing him from becoming an international figure.
Jimmy met with a beautiful woman and started giving up on drinking.
A bright future and life were waiting for Jimmy.
The journey was difficult for Jimmy, but he kept on trying to achieve his dreams.
Lessons of a dream are a movie that is all about teaching English vocabulary to German kids.
Here an Oxford-educated teacher takes the responsibility to teach the German kids.
The Oxford teacher came to know that the students are fond of soccer.
So, the teacher used soccer as a way to make the students learn English vocabulary.
As the name depicts, the movie is all about a captain.
Madan Khadka (a football player) went to Saudi Arabia to support his family in this movie.
Madan went there in search of a livelihood as football was not helping him in this regard.
Madan's son (Ishan) was also a diehard lover of football.
Madan wanted Ishan to follow in his footsteps. Ishan was giving his best in this regard.
All of a sudden, Madan faced an accident.
Now Ishan had to choose between his dream and his father's career.
The movie tells us the story of a divorced father. Torben was a great soccer player, and he also found the same skills in his son (David).
Torben wanted to coach David's team. Soon David's coach left.
Now Torben got the opportunity to coach David and his team.
Torben faced a lot of pressure from the parents of the team boys.
And soon, Torben fell in love with a single mom from the parents of the team boys.
The movie tells us about the journey of a Serbian football team.
The Serbian team wanted to qualify and win the first World Football Championship in Montevideo, Uruguay.
As the name implies, the movie will show you that the Serbian team has already tasted the victory of the World football championship.
As the team has tasted its dream, nothing can stop the Serbian team from putting their dreams into reality.
Serbian football dream chased its dream and fought with tooth and nail to achieve them.
The movie is all about a young girl (Gracie Bowen).
Gracie was fond of playing football.
Gracie's father was a soccer star, and her three brothers also loved football.
Gracie was the only daughter of her father. Gracie wanted to become like her father and brothers.
But Gracie could not fulfill her dreams as the old customs and traditions didn't allow Gracie.
Gracie wanted to remove that gender discrimination once and for all.
Her best movie revolves around a young girl (Sara). Sara was a simple and young girl of 15 years old.
Sara wanted to live a simple life that would be full of love.
Sara was good at playing soccer. Sara's father wanted her to practice football and become a football player.
On the contrary, Sara wanted not to pursue her profession.
Sara's mother understood her condition and wished to have a simple life.
The movie is all about Queen's Park Rangers football club in West London.
The team's performance was not satisfactory.
Then there comes a twist in the film.
Most of the businessmen started investing in that team to make the team achieve the finale.
The movie is all about solid and rich characters that earn the QPR into the premier league.
All those characters invested a lot to make it possible.
Kicking it is an excellent documentary about six soccer players.
All the six players gave their lives to a football game. They were homeless and faced a lot of troubles throughout their journey.
The six soccer players wanted a miracle in their lives that would change their lives.
The story took a sharp twist when they travel to Cape Town.
There they get a chance to compete for the Homeless World Cup.
Are you looking for a football film that will provide you with endless fun and football gestures? Well, here is your film.
The movie is all about a group of patriots who sacrificed their lives for their beloved country.
The group played soccer against their nation's traitors.
You will find Soccer Killer the perfect film to watch if you want to watch the best comedy sports film.
The movie is all about two brothers. Here, Julius and Daniel were brought up by a single mother.
Both Julius and Daniel loved football very much.
Both wanted to pursue football as their profession.
Julius and Daniel dreamed of a life where they would get rid of their miseries and poverty.
That thing made both brothers play for their city.
The movie is all about a person who loved her wife a lot.
Ottar Thor was a famous football player who led a simple and passionate life.
Ottar's marriage ended as soon as he announced the real Ottar in front of the people.
Ottar was gay. As a result, the team members expelled Ottar from the team.
That thing made Ottar join a friend's amateur team.
After that, a large number of gay joined the team.
The movie is a masterpiece when it comes to highlighting the evils that are common in sports.
In this movie, Lee Tung faced severe humiliation from his team.
Lee was an able boy, and that thing made Lee face bullying.
Lee left his team and joined another team to pursue football as his profession and dream.
Lee didn't give up on football and taught us that the bullying, corruption, and jealousy in sports had eaten the vitals of sports.
The movie revolves around love, feelings, and emotions.
In this movie, Mario (a football player) found love with his teammate (Leon).
Mario and Leon spent a lot of time together on and off the field.
But the accurate picture of their relationship came to the fore.
Now Mario has to decide whether to remain a team member or to spend his life with Leon.
The movie is all about female Soccer players.
The film started as a provocation but turned into a revolution within no time.
The team belonged to France. And that was the first female soccer team in the history of France.
That time and match played a pivotal role to make things clear that women can also participate in outdoor sports.
The film's name (Let the girls play) also highlights the emergence of women as football players and teams.
The movie, Two Half Times in Hell, depicts a vast event.
Here, the movie revolves around Hilter's birthday party after the Second World War.
A Nazi officer aimed at organizing a football competition between the Germans and the Prisoners of war.
Onodi took the responsibility to make the team from POWs.
Onodi used that platform to get rid of the workload and also demanded extra food for the team members.


text:
Harriet Matthews
You are here: / TV / Features /
Chief Editor: Why I won't be watching Game of Thrones any more
My fave is problematic, and it's time to call it a day. Here's why I won't be watching Game of Thrones any more
May 26, 2015 roob.la/47370
ShareAll sharing options for:Chief Editor: Why I won't be watching Game of Thrones any more
Linkedin (opens in new window)
Reddit (opens in new window)
Pocket (opens in new window)
Flipboard (opens in new window)
Email (opens in new window)
These are external links and will open in a new window
Add to collection(s)
Last week Game of Thrones gave us yet another rape scene. Like many of its rape scenes, this one was inconsiderately handled, added nothing whatsoever to the overall plot or development of the characters involved, and wasn't in the original books. It's made many fans decide that they will no longer watch the show, and unfortunately I am one of them.
There are a hundred different reasons why I, and many other die-hard GOT fans just like me, have finally decided that enough is enough this week. To go into them all in detail would make this into a book instead of an article, so I'll be as concise as I can in explaining the main reasons for my own decision to not watch or review Game of Thrones any more.
In last week's episode, 'Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken', Sansa married the carnage-crazy Ramsay Bolton, and he subsequently raped her on their wedding night while forcing Theon to watch. This was a scene which told us nothing we didn't already know about the characters involved; we already knew that Ramsay is a one-dimensional sadist, we already knew that Theon is tortured and emotionally scarred, and we certainly already knew that Sansa has suffered, and is suffering. In short, the scene was gratuitous.
The camera panned away and focused on Theon's stricken expression, an action that made clear the true purpose of the scene; in Game of Thrones, rape is a badly wielded narrative tool, used to create adversity for women, or incentive for men.
It seems that rape, or the threat of rape, has now become the only challenge that writers D.B. Weiss and David Benioff can think of to give to their female characters (and let's not completely exonerate author George R. R. Martin, either). When Game of Thrones wants its male characters to grow as people by presenting them with challenges, they kill somebody they love. They promote them to a position of power, or suddenly take their power away. They have them betrayed by their friends, cut off their hands or otherwise injure them, or make them the keeper of a dark secret. When Game of Thrones wants its female characters to develop and change, they rape them, or threaten them with rape. And that's not just lazy writing, it's also seriously, disturbingly misogynistic.
The television show has now deviated from Martin's books by quite a long way, changing certain storylines and cutting others out completely, but both books and show have a long history of including many scenes of rape and sexual violence. However, the writers of the show also have a much discussed habit of adding rape scenes that were never in the books.
In the books, it isn't Sansa who marries Ramsay and is subsequently raped by him. It's another character entirely, who doesn't appear in the show. Which begs the question; why drop so many other storylines from the books, but keep this particular one, in spite of the fact that the character it chiefly concerns has been completely cut?
It's because the writers 'like' rape scenes; they have fallen back on them again and again as an easy and edgy way to create drama, and to push the development of certain characters. Unfortunately, Game of Thrones has increasingly shown that it has absolutely no idea how to correctly handle rape. In the last two seasons especially, the show has moved away from plainly illustrating the horrifying world its women live in, and instead seems to take gratuitous delight in abusing them with little recourse to the actual story.
Concerning this particular scene; Sansa, as proved by the scene just before the wedding when she asserts her dominance over Myranda, has begun to grow into authority. That is then ripped away again by her rape. She shows her strength; she is immediately punished for it with sexual violence. That quick succession cannot be coincidental, and if it is, then we're dealing with writers who are not only perpetuating misogyny, they're also completely, obliviously, incompetent.
Many defenders of the show are asking why none of us objected to the rapes in Game of Thrones before now; the Drogo/Daenerys rape, the Jaime/Cersei rape, and all the other rapes of characters without names or lines. The answer is that we did; we did object. There was a minor outcry when the show depicted Daenerys' wedding night as non-consensual (when it was explicitly consensual in the books), and a major outcry when Jaime raped Cersei in the Sept, which only got worse when the showrunners couldn't seem to agree on whether they'd meant to shoot the scene as consensual or not, showing a profound misunderstanding of rape amongst some of the show's creators.
Just as worrying was the constant threat of 'background rape'; the nameless women raped by the Dothraki in season one, the nameless women raped at Craster's Keep, first by Craster and then by the Night's Watch rebels. Many called the show out for all of this, and many chose to stop watching after the Jaime/Cersei rape in season four. Some of us, myself included, elected to stick with it, but the show was on very thin ice and we were forever watchful for it to put even one toe out of line on the issue of rape.
For most of us, this has been a cumulative process; we haven't just suddenly decided to drop the show because of this one Ramsay/Sansa rape scene. This has been a very long time coming, and Sansa's rape was the straw that broke the camel's back.
The relentless use of rape as a reminder of how perilous the world of Westeros is, or as a shortcut to creating adversity for female characters, has got to such a pitch that watching the show now is punctuated by wondering who's going to get raped next, or when the next casual rape scene is going to pop out of the woodwork. This is not what I signed up for.
I watched the next episode of the series – 'The Gift' – to see if by some miracle it dealt with the aftermath of last week's events in a skilful and effective manner. No such luck, I'm afraid; not only did we have a terrified Sansa locked in her room 24/7 with her husband raping her every night, we also had the old servant who promised to help her nailed up and flayed alive. Ramsay forces Sansa to look upon the mutilated body of the old woman, similar to the way Joffrey forced her to stare at the severed head of her father back in King's Landing – as if we needed any more reminding of just how dire her situation is.
Before she sees the dead body of her servant friend, she's still got enough nerve to sass Ramsay about the fact that he's a bastard, but frankly this small show of strength does little to make up for her character losing all semblance of agency once again, and turning to Theon to get help from outside instead of masterminding an escape effort herself. This is also doing little to assuage viewer's fears that Sansa's rape would just be a vehicle for Theon to redeem himself.
At the Wall, we have another near rape when two of the Black Brothers decided to force themselves on Gilly. Unsurprisingly, the showrunners screw up here as well. Just like Sansa's rapes are more concerned with Theon's character than they are hers, Gilly's near rape is just an excuse for Sam's character to develop, to give him a reason to stand up and fight. The sheer nerve of the showrunners – writing this scene, putting it in this episode, when they must have known what an outcry the previous episode would cause – is frankly staggering. It suggests to me that not only do they not understand their audience at all, they also don't understand the story they're trying to tell, or how to tell it properly without making rape the loadbearing wall of their plot and character development.
I've had enough. I don't trust Weiss and Benioff any more, whether they're sticking with Martin's books or not. I don't trust the directors or producers either, if these are the sort of ham-fisted plot developments they're willing to work with, and to film so inconsiderately. I'm unwilling to continue watching, reviewing and writing about a show whose creators think this use and portrayal of rape is acceptable, and who seem to treat their viewers with so little credence and respect.
I'm not going to tell other Roobla contributors that they can't write about the show if they want to, because despite being Chief Editor, I don't think it's my place to do that. Roobla is a site that is entirely created, built and staffed by people who aren't making any money out of the enterprise at all; they do it because they love it, and they deserve the opportunity to write about what they want to write about, within reason. However – and this is a big however – you can rest assured that any article which makes any sort of apology for rape, rapists, or rape culture in general, I'll come down on like a ton of bricks.
Having enjoyed Game of Thrones so much over the years, and invested a lot of time in reviewing and writing about it, I thought long and hard before making this decision. But eventually, the choice became painfully obvious – enough is enough.
f/features f/tv f/opinions f/game of thrones
@harriet-matthews
Login to follow
Review: Ronja, the Robber's Daughter (2014)
The Daily Melt: Dog Conquers Fear of Walking Through Doorway
The Daily Melt: Tiny Determined Puppy Plays Tug of War with Big Patient Dog
Locked Up: Prison Onscreen
Post category: TV Feature
Video: Will Ferrell brings back Harry Caray on Letterman
Post category: TV Video
Actor Profile: Mark Wahlberg
Post category: Movie Feature
Discussion feed
Login to start a discussion
Up next in TV
Jack Bottomley
WWE Survivor Series WarGames 2022 review: It was all about The Bloodline here
ShareAll sharing options for:WWE Survivor Series WarGames 2022 review: It was all about The Bloodline here
WWE Crown Jewel 2022 review: a jewel indeed
ShareAll sharing options for:WWE Crown Jewel 2022 review: a jewel indeed
WWE Extreme Rules 2022 review: Feed Your Head!
ShareAll sharing options for:WWE Extreme Rules 2022 review: Feed Your Head!
WWE SummerSlam 2022 review: A spectacle in many ways but not the radical revamp people are making it out to be
ShareAll sharing options for:WWE SummerSlam 2022 review: A spectacle in many ways but not the radical revamp people are making it out to be
Channel 4's Most Awesome Antiheroes
ShareAll sharing options for:Channel 4's Most Awesome Antiheroes
WWE Money in the Bank 2022 review: A serviceable if forgettable show
ShareAll sharing options for:WWE Money in the Bank 2022 review: A serviceable if forgettable show