960 HARLAN, J., dissenting custodial care and mental infirmity. The public interest in having such persons informed about Bridgewater . . . outweighs any countervailing interests of the inmates and of the Commonwealth (as parens patriae) in anonymity and privacy." 356 Mass. 251, 262, 249 N. E. 2d 610, 618. These conclusions represent a measured and thoughtful attempt to grapple with a difficult and important problem. Yet they demonstrate the importance of review by this Court for they sharply focus the dimension of the question presented by this case. The question. at this juncture is not whether the Supreme Judicial Court was correct or incorrect in striking the constitutional balance, but merely whether this Court should grant certiorari. I fail to see how, on a complex and important issue like this, it can be concluded that this Court should withhold plenary review. The case for review is strengthened by the fact that a distinguished federal judge refused to enjoin in New York the showing of this very same film. This is not of course the traditional conflict that requires this Court to step in, but it underscores the difficulty and importance of the issues that are apparent both from reading the decision of the Massachusetts court and a viewing of the film. I am at a loss to understand how questions of such importance can be deemed not "certworthy." To the extent that the Commonwealth suggests that certiorari be denied because petitioners failed to comply with reasonable contract conditions imposed by the Commonwealth, that question in itself is one of significant constitutional dimension, for it is an open question as to how far a government may go in cutting off access of the media to its institutions when such access will not hinder them in performing their functions. Cf. Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532 (1965); Pickering v. Board of Education, HARLAN, J., dissenting 398 U.S. 391 U. S. 563 (1968). In the case before us, however, the only asserted interest is the State's concern for the privacy of the inmates in its care, and the basis for the decision below was the predominance of that interest over that of the general public in seeing the film. The Commonwealth does not urge, nor could it do so given the opinion of the court below, that the injunction against showing this film was a mere remedy for a breach of contract, assuming the Commonwealth was free to impose whatever restrictions it chose on press access to Bridgewater. The statement in the opinion below that the violation of privacy "taken with the failure of Mr. Wiseman [the producer of the film] to comply with the contractual condition that he obtain valid releases . . . amply justify granting injunctive relief," 356 Mass. 251, 259, 249 N. E. 2d 610, 616, leaves no room for doubt that the invasion of privacy underpins the Massachusetts court's action and that the failure to obtain releases served only to underscore that invasion. The later statement restricting the holding to the mere fact that petitioner Wiseman "violated the permission given to him, reasonably interpreted, and did not comply with valid conditions," 356 Mass. 251, 261, 249 N. E. 2d 610, 617, is not a finding that the relief below is warranted as an award to redress the State for a breach of contract but reiterates merely the fact, already stated, that the invasion of privacy is compounded by the breach of understanding. I see no way to sift out an independent state ground based on contract principles. Moreover, even if the injunction could, in the absence of any discussion of principles of contract law, be viewed as a remedy for a breach of contract, a question of First Amendment dimension is presented when that remedy is to enjoin the dissemination of information of such importance. Cf. International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215, 248 (1918) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); Pearson v. Dodd, 133 U. S. App. D. C. 279, 410 F. 2d 701 (1969); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra. I would grant certiorari and set the case for plenary consideration. No. 1026. ESTEBAN ET AL. v. CENTRAL MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE ET AL. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 415 F. 2d 1077. No. 1481. TERMINAL FREIGHT COOPERATIVE ASSN. ET AL. v. SAMOFF, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ET AL. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to defer consideration denied. Certiorari denied. Re ported below: 420 F. 2d 952. No. 1513. BURGUENO v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 423 F. 2d 599. No. 1533. EPSTEIN V. RESOR, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 421 F. 2d 930. No. 1559. STOCKHAM VALVES & FITTINGS, INC. v. ARTHUR J. SCHMITT FOUNDATION ET AL. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: 404 F. 2d 13. No. 1213, Misc. ANDERSON V. FOLLETTE, WARDEN. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 1793, Misc. WHITLEY V. OHIO. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. No. 1891, Misc. Certiorari denied. 2d 473. June 15, 1970 398 U.S. JELKS v. ARIZONA. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Reported below: 105 Ariz. 175, 461 P. No. 1909, Misc. KENNEDY v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 1913, Misc. BUCHANON v. CULLMAN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION. Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied. No. 1967, Misc. LANDRY v. UNITED STATES. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 1980, Misc. ROOK v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 424 F. 2d 403. No. 1995, Misc. MOORE v. FOLLETTE, WARDEN. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 425 F. 2d 925. No. 2013, Misc. HATT V. NEW JERSEY. Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied. Reported below: See 55 N. J. 312, 261 A. 2d 356. No. 2034, Misc. REED v. FOLLETTE, WARDEN. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 2035, Misc. STEAD v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F. 2d 183. No. 2036, Misc. Certiorari denied. 2d 562. SMELSER v. UTAH. Sup. Ct. Utah. Reported below: 23 Utah 347, 463 P. No. 2039, Misc. CURL v. BURKE, WARDEN. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 2045, Misc. PARKER V. SOUTH DAKOTA ET AL. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 423 F.2d 1021. 398 U.S. No. 2048, Misc. INTENDENT. June 15, 1970 ALFORD v. Cox, PENITENTIARY SUPERC. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 2052, Misc. Cal., 2d App. Dist. 1 Cal. App. 3d 873, No. 2053, Misc. HELFEND v. CALIFORNIA. Ct. App. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 82 Cal. Rptr. 295. BOWMAN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 409 F. 2d 225. No. 2054, Misc. STEVENSON v. MANCUSI, WARDEN. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 2057, Misc. TURNER v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 423 F. 2d 481. No. 2060, Misc. MCNEILL v. CALIFORNIA. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. No. 2064, Misc. JACKSON v. Cox, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 2088, Misc. BIBBS v. ILLINOIS. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 115 Ill. App. 2d 200, 253 N. E. 2d 179. No. 2091, Misc. RAY v. CRAVEN, WARDEN. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. No. 2094, Misc. PRIDGEON V. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 2096, Misc. WEST V. CALIFORNIA. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied. No. 2100, Misc. FLETCHER V. WAYCHOFF, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF GREENE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. |