text:
Once known for making films with brash and controversial subjects, director Spike Lee hasn't made headlines for years. Now, with his new film 25th Hour, he is attempting to become relevant again, writes Vanessa E. Jones.
Used to be the release of a Spike Lee movie was an event.
When 1991's Jungle Fever hit theatres, the entire country chattered about interracial relationships. The release of Malcolm X a year later inspired fans to don baseball caps and T-shirts bearing the single letter of the slain civil rights leader's surname. Think New York film makers, and Lee looms alongside giants Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen. He's the only black film maker who gets recognised in Tokyo, London and Sydney.
Then the P.T. Barnum of movie promotion, whose brash words and controversial subjects made headlines, lost his game. None of the eight films he's released since 1992 has even approached the box-office heights of Malcolm X.
"Ten years ago, (Bamboozled) would have been all the rage," says Todd Boyd, an associate professor of critical studies at the University of Southern California, referring to Lee's provocative 2000 film about a televised minstrel show. "People would have been defending it or harshly critiquing it, (but) nobody really paid attention to it. And that's because he's like that guy yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre. He's done it so much that nobody pays attention no more."
Pop culture writer Nelson George explains Lee's changing fortunes this way: "He was so visible and so ubiquitous that a certain kind of exhaustion set in. People just got tired of him."
Fine, but Lee unapologetically views himself as an uncompromising maverick.
"I'm not going to just do what's the latest craze," he says. "If I had gone with that thinking, I would have never made Do the Right Thing. I know it's hard to do, but I don't really go by what the winds are or the audience's tastes. It's not really my job to predict what the audience is going to like a year ahead."
In a way, Lee is the victim of an industry he helped transform. In 1986, he single-handedly led a black film-making renaissance with his debut, She's Gotta Have It. Now Hollywood is all about the bottom line, producing blockbusters and sequels galore, while black drama and message films have become the territory of HBO and Showtime.
Although he won't say it, 25th Hour is Lee's attempt to become relevant again.
Set in New York, the film traces the last day of freedom of Monty Brogan, a convicted drug dealer headed for prison. Haunting the movie is a subject primed to generate buzz: Lee pointedly explores New York City after September 11. Add a predominantly white cast led by Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper, and you get a film that's begging for crossover appeal.
"Spike needed to do a film that had more mainstream potential," says George, an investor in She's Gotta Have It and co-author with Lee of Spike Lee's Gotta Have It: Inside Guerrilla Film-making.
"Black drama in Hollywood has been in retreat for a number of years. Bamboozled had a very small budget, while this film has a fairly big-name cast, a good budget, and has been marketed in a mainstream way. (From) a career point of view, it's a very good move for Spike."
And it's a move being made by a number of black directors these days. In the last few years, Hollywood has developed a limited, small-budgeted vision of black film. They're lowbrow comedies, romantic comedies, or what Lee calls "the hip-hop, drugs, shoot 'em up gangsta films". He adds: "Those are really the three ghettos we're confined to. If you want to do something outside of that, it's going to be very hard."
To avoid those ghettos, African-American film makers are following Wesley Snipes, Denzel Washington and Halle Berry into the mainstream. Carl Franklin helmed the Ashley Judd suspense flick High Crimes, while Reginald Hudlin directed the Matthew Perry comedy Serving Sara.
"If you're going to have a career, if you want to have access to bigger marketing budgets and have a chance to have a hit, you have to do more than just films about black people," George says. "That's been pretty clear."
Lee still paints a portrait of himself as a powerful black film maker.
"With the exception of the Joe Louis script and the Jackie Robinson film, I've made every film I've wanted to make," he boasts. "I'm the exception. I'm one of the few to be able to slide through the door."
Just barely, it seems. A recent New York Times article quoted Lee as saying of 25th Hour: "This movie wasn't getting made unless Ed was doing it." Now Lee disowns those words.
"Well, that's not really true," he says. "The (New York Times) writer had his own agenda that Spike Lee is desperate and he needs a hit . . . I mean, he totally misrepresented the situation. This was an easy film to make; Disney wanted to make this film . . . and it came together really quick."
Still, Lee's directing a predominantly white cast raises tough questions. Two years ago, when Michael Mann got the nod to direct Will Smith in Ali, an unnamed source whispered to the New York Daily News that Lee - who was also being considered for the project - hated the decision: "Spike felt that only a black man could do justice to the story."
When asked about it now, Lee responds: "No. I never said that about Michael Mann."
Is it fair, he is asked, to criticise white directors of black films yet remain silent on African-Americans directing mainstream films with white actors? Yes, says Lee. "If you're a black person in America, from the time you could think, you were bombarded with images of white people, bombarded with white culture," he says. "Turn that around and it's not the same. I would say I do know more about white culture than Michael Mann knows about black culture, and I will say Ali was indicative of that."
Race is certainly a subtext of 25th Hour. In a sequence from the novel that echoes a signature scene in Do the Right Thing, Norton's Brogan spews racial slurs into a mirror, blaming everyone but himself for his troubles.
"I don't think this is a radical departure from what (Lee's) been doing," and that's the problem, George says.
"I think his biggest issue is still the issue of story. His film-making technique is excellent, but people still don't feel like they're getting a tightly constructed story," George says. "That's something that's dogged his entire career." Reviews of Lee's films are filled with recurring themes: Lee's endings don't satisfy; his films are didactic.
With Girl 6, Clockers and Crooklyn, all released in the mid-1990s to mixed reviews, the director ran into a mid-career crisis that George believes cost Lee his audience. Now Lee is a celebrity who gets more attention for trash-talking at Knicks basketball games than he does for his recent films.
"It's like a basketball player," says Boyd. "You can talk about how great you are for hours at a time, but the determination as to how great you are comes on the basketball court. Spike did a lot of talking, but when it came down to it, his films were not up to the level of his conversation.
"His movies are the same as they were in the beginning. But when 10, 12, 15 years later you're making the same kind of movies, there's no progress, there's no growth." Still, Lee's changing cinematic fortunes won't curtail his ability to make films. "There are people who've made more bad movies than Spike still making movies in Hollywood," says Boyd. "(Studios) would much rather spend their money on some tried and true commodity than take a chance."
"The question is, at what levels will he be able to work without having a hit?" George says. "He wants to do epic dramas, and those cost money. That's a bit of a conundrum for him. Everyone knows he's a historic film maker, a very innovative film maker. I'm just not sure in the current climate where that puts him in terms of getting financing."
The answer may come in the box office generated by 25th Hour.
- New York Times
reprinted from the Age 13th January 2003


text:
Dozens of entrepreneurship programs are available in graduate schools across the country. Only top-notch programs make the annual lists of the best business schools.
The F.W. Olin Graduate School of Business at Babson College in Massachusetts offers the number one graduate business program for entrepreneurs in the country, according to the U.S. News and World Report website, as of 2011. The yearly tuition for this program is $46,000, and it offers concentrations in finance, accounting, economics and other areas in addition to entrepreneurship. Full-time students employed at graduation stands at 51 percent. Some notable alumni include media and social entrepreneur Mir Ibrahim Rahman, the co-founder and CEO of GEO TV Networks, and Stephen Spinelli, the president of Philadelphia University and co-founder of Jiffy Lube.
Stanford University is next on the list of entrepreneur graduate programs. Tuition is $53,118, and students can join the Summer Institute for Entrepreneurship as well. Graduates earn an average base salary of $118,793, and the percentage of full-time students employed at graduation is 75.8. Stanford entrepreneurs can take advantage of the Entrepreneurship Corner, a website devoted to advice and resources for entrepreneurs. It has advice from entrepreneur and innovation thought leaders in the form of podcasts and videos.
The yearly tuition for a full-time student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management is $50,353. This school is third on the U.S. News and World Report list. The curriculum at Sloan provides an international focus, and MIT's $100K Entrepreneurship Competition makes it a good place for budding entrepreneurs. The Entrepreneurship Competition offers cash prizes and business start-up services for winners. The percentage of full-time students employed at graduation is 75.6 percent. Sloan graduates have started more than 650 businesses.
Harvard Business School students pay $48,600 per year in tuition, but their program is fourth on the list of the best business schools for entrepreneurs. Students can join more than seventy clubs at HBS. Full-time students employed at graduation stands at 78.6 percent. Students can take part in the HBS Business Plan Contest, which offers awards, and in-kind and cash prizes of up to $25,000 for business plans with both for-profit and social agendas.
Fifth on the list of good schools for entrepreneurship is the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the oldest business school in the U.S. This program also has the widest alumni network in the United States. Students can attend classes in Philadelphia or San Francisco and join one of nearly 150 clubs. Outdoor trips that focus on leadership skills are part of the curriculum. Students pay $48,550 per year in tuition. The percentage of full-time students with jobs at graduation is 72.5 percent. Wharton counts the banking entrepreneur alumnus Vernon Hill of Commerce Bank among its notable graduates.
Other notable schools with excellent entrepreneurship programs at the graduate level are in the Top 25 list from the Princeton Review on Entrepreneur.com.
The top ten include the following universities:
- The Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship at Babson College
- The Rollins Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology at Brigham Young University
- The Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia;
- The Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago;
- The Samuel Zell & Robert H. Lurie Institute at the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor;
- The Skandalaris Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Washington University in St. Louis;
- The McGuire Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona;
- The Herb Kelleher Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Texas at Austin;
- The Jones Graduate School Entrepreneurship Program at Rice University
- The Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the University of Southern California.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Anyway on to the outfit! I wore my topshop baggy t-shirt for the first time today, It only cost me a tenner so i thought it was a bargain and now i have things to wear it with. I teamed it with my denim shorts and my spotty tights. Quite a gothic outfit i thought hahah! Didn't feel like me. But i did get compliments more today then i do normally? Hmm weird. I do love this top it's so comfy, Very see through (Which i realised just as i was walking out the door and had to put a vest underneath) Annoyingly my vest broke half way through the day so one of the straps has come off..Maybe I'll cut both off and it'll be a strapless top! I also tried a different place of taking my pictures. I did it in my bathroom! personally don't like it at all the lighting is awful anyway cause it's dark but yeah. I feel like i look much bigger then i am in real life in these photos. Urgh the more i look at them the more i want to delete them!!
Blogger just isn't being my friend today. It's not letting me layout my pictures nicely and it's really peeing me off!! I hate these photos (feeling really ugly and blergh today) so i didn't make them extra large like i normally do hahaha. I dunno if i prefer them small anyway! So today my skin is bad. Well bad for me! I haven't had spots in so so long for some reason! I always did have pretty bad skin but it cleared up this winter and today was just not a good day. Maybe it was due to the alcohol and cigarettes i had on Saturday? who knows but i defiantly wont be doing that again.
I'm sorry, I'm in such a meh mood. Can't really be bothered with the blog today :( I'm very sorrry and i apologise! I will be back to normal tomorrow as i have a relaxing self directed study day all day. So i will be able to take a lot of tea breaks and it wont be stressful! it'll be all good. I'm going to be up all night finishing designing some shoes for this project! Can't wait to show you some of my designs. There not the best they could be but i found it really fun! I'll take some pictures tonight to show you. Then I'm going to have to decide what to wear tomorrow. Is it just me who normally plans the night before? even though i normally change my idea in the morning.
thank you for all the comments and everything I appreciate it!


text:
When you hold hands, cuddle, kiss, make out, make love, etc. with an individual for the first time, how often is alchohol (or a comparable substance) used in conjuction with your romantic advances? How often does the brew correlate with these person-to-person benchmarks of your romantic endeavours?
***Note: The poll refers to ANY consumption of alchohol within the effective timeframe of the romantic advances. If you would like to clarify how little or how much was involved, you may do so in the comments, but do not sway your answer. Count all events where alchohol was consumed regardless of the amount involved, or the perceived alchohol tolerance of either party.
- Never
- 1-15% of the time
- 16-35% of the time
- 36-50% of the time
- 51-75% of the time
- 76-100% of the time
- My lifestyle leaves me with too many foggy memories to know a percentage
Whether its a hook up, or a long term relationship, any physical progression beyond platonic behavior is romantic in affect for this poll.
Most Helpful Girl
Never has involved alcohol before. I get on edge with " romantic " interests when alcohol is involved and usually stay away from those temptations. There is a difference between romantic interest and convenient interests though. I've had one convenient interest before and that did involve alcohol. I also ended it immediately after though
Yeah, that counts.
Convenient interest wasn't a term that I was aware of when making this poll.
- Show AllShow Less
If it wasn't a romantic interaction, and it wasn't a platonic interaction, then what type was it? "Convenient" interaction is something made up, that doesn't even exist on google.
Okay Mr. Google king, if I'm wrong, please give me the right answer then. I answered your question with my opinion, I'm sorry that's not good enough for you but I don't really think I'm too torn up about it either.
Most Helpful Guy
I never drink alcohol.
Thanks for the MHO


text:
Deepika Padukone's debut Hollywood movie xXx: Return of The Xander Cage had a full-fledged release yesterday. As per the reports coming, the movie is off to a decent opening. As per the numbers shared by Box Office India, xXx: Return of The Xander Cage collected 6.25 Crores on its opening day. This is a good start for a movie driving primitively on Deepika Padukone's star value.
Released on around 1800 screens in India, the movie performed best in metros and multiplexes like Mumbai, Pune and Delhi. In North India, the movie was affected by Aamir Khan's Dangal, which is still going strong.
Down South, regional films including Khaidi no. 150 have affected the movie. xXx: Return of The Xander Cage has a chance to make good moolah in south circuits but the big regional releases have dented its growth.
After two days, the movie stands at the total collections of 8 Crores. It earned 1.75 Crores through paid previews on Friday. With decent growth expected today, the movie will end its first weekend with the collection of around 16 Crores.
Directed by D. J. Caruso, the movies also star Vin Diesel, Donnie Yen, Kris Wu, Ruby Rose, Tony Jaa, Nina Dobrev, Toni Collette and Samuel L. Jackson in key roles. It will release on 20 Jan in U.S. and other countries.


text:
|HR Director Amy Trapp
Trapp told Council, that since Human Relations was first established in 1998, there has been no reorganization of the office while the County's workforce has grown to 2,200 managed by a staff of 13.
As a result of a critical review of her own department, Trapp determined that too many human resource functions are being foisted on department heads, which detracts from their ability to do their own jobs while burdening them with sensitive employee information..
The restructuring approved will re-classify her staff to include two recruitment specialists, two benefit coordinators, one labor relations officer, one leave coordinator and one HR analyst. It will also create an executive secretary and pension and retirement administrator position.
Recruitment specialists ($34,910, pay grade CS-17) will assist with recruitment and testing efforts, as well as employee "onboarding" and employee orientation. Benefits coordinators ($40,083, pay grade CS-20) will administer employee benefit programs, including health, workers comp, life insurance and disability. The leave administrator ($43,948, pay grade CS-22) will coordinate the County's leave programs, whether it is sick leave, military leave or leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).The pension and retirement administrator ($43,948, pay grade CS-22) will perform pension calculations, conduct benefits audits and respond to pension and retiree questions. The human resources analyst ($57,926, pay grade CS-28) will study job rends and identify appropriate employee compensation based on both internal and external salary statistics. The executive secretary ($38,276 , pay grade CS-19) will work in direct support of the Director of Human Resources and will be trusted with highly confidential information.
Trapp indicated there will be cross-training within the department. "You can't survive in this day and age, doing more with less, without having everyone cross-trained," she told Council President John Cusick.
The total cost of these changes to the County will be $156,135, but Trapp indicated that there will be no need for a Budget Amendment because she already has the money for these new positions.She added that the County wold see a "huge return" on this restructuring in soft costs like avoiding EEOC claims that on average cost the County $250,000, regardless of outcome.
Most importantly Trapp believes this will help serve the employee population.
In response to Ken Kraft, Trapp advised that department managers can spend between 60-90 minutes of their day dealing with an FMLA matter, and that takes them away from their job duties, slowing them down, and ultimately costing the taxpayer. It also costs employers $78,000 on average to defend a FMLA lawsuit, regardless of outcome. Decentralized FMLA increases the probability of error. .
Trapp has also eliminated the 4-day a week, 10-hour day in her office. "HR is a customer service focused department," she told Peg Ferraro."My philosophy of service to be provided to employees did not allow for four 10-hour days because we needed to be available when employees needed us."
"When we hired Ms.Trapp last year, this is why we hired her," said Ken Kraft, himself a business agent for the trades unions. "I think this is going to be great."
In other business, County Solicitor Ryan Durkin asked Council to reclassify his Office Administrator, Sharon Lerch, from Executive Secretary to Paralegal,with a modest increase in salary to $47,892 (pay grade CS-21).
Durkin called Lerch "one of the best paralegals I've ever had." He called her "the essential glue that makes the part-time office work," referring to the part-time Solicitors.
Hayden Phillips noted that, in addition to the work experience, she also has a paralegal certificate from Northampton Community College, and was also recommended by DA John Morganelli. "She also has the drive," said Ken Kraft. "I want to keep her."
Her reclassification and raise passed 8-0.
Glenn Geissinger, who is running for Congress, skipped the meeting to attend a fundraiser in Pottsville. Executive John Brown, who is running for state auditor general, opted to attend a candidates' night in Philadelphia.


text:
Some theorists think that, as he neared the end of his life, screen legend Marlon Brando turned from human flesh into bacon.
In this instance, he's just outlined in it.
Reddit user siskoeva posted the photo, stating that her mother made it for a friend's 50th birthday. (A friend who likely won't make it to 51.)
As is Reddit's way, the pork puns went flying. How could they not?
What other artists have found their muse in meat à la siskoeva's mom?
We made mention in May of Instructable's porcine take on post-Impressionism:
In 2008 the art exhibit Meat After Meat Joy featured nothing but meat-related art, including this meat baby by sculptor Betty Hirst:
Art and fashion collide in Alex Lucka's work. The photographer has a series of models decorated with meat, including caul fat:
Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.


text:
How are you holding up? Did you survived the Christmas feasts? After our huge Christmas lunch, we were in a 'food coma', self inflicted of course. All of us had a siesta when our guests left. Woke up and went for a run with Ashleigh to ease away the guilt.
Traditionally Boxing Day in Sydney is spent at the Boxing Day sales, watching the cricket on tv (live from MCG), heading to the cinemas to watch one of the blockbuster movies or grabbing one of the vantage spots whilst waiting in anticipation for the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race.
This year, I suggested to Ashleigh that she might want to experience one of the traditional Boxing Day activities - Boxing Day sales. She was keen on the idea but I warned her it had to be an early start. Myer and David Jones were opened from 5am today. We left the house at 7:30am to catch the train to the city, it was the wise choice since parking will be too expensive. Before we hit the shops, we decided to have breakfast at the food centre below Myer to fuel up before the marathon walking.
Then it was straight to the children's department and worked our way down. It was a surprise to us that the crowds were not bad at all, in fact the queues at the cashier were not that long but manageable. We bought a few presents for friends who have invited us for NYE's lunch. Three hours later, we emerged disappointed at the sales especially since Mr Bernie Brooks, CEO of Myer had said this would be the most aggressive sale ever. But my purse was happy since I didn't spend too much, mainly for items on my list. A good bargain was perfumes 40% discounts on gift packs. Another interesting observation was the long queues mainly Asians outside Oroton, Prada, Longchamp, Guess and L'Occitane. I guess, with China booming, that's where the new consumers will come from.
In the afternoon, we went to watch Tom Cruise's latest Mission Impossible movie - Ghost Protocol. This is the 4th installment of the MI series. I really enjoyed the movie, one of the best in the series. The film was shot in various places from Moscow, Budapest, Dubai and Mumbai. My heart was in my mouth at the scene where Ethan had to climb the tallest building in Dubai, well over 100 floors.
All in all, it was a relaxing day post the Christmas celebrations.


text: This stand is in a newer development in Dullstroom on the western side of town as the town is expanding. It is ideal for a retirement couple or a smaller family, or as a holiday home which can then also be let out to create an income. The stand size is 990m². and is one of only 16 stands. Two houses are already built and occupied in this development.


text: It seems like there are multiple threads on the 3G - > 1x -> no signal at all issue. I'm just trying to consolidate. FWIW, my buddy and I both got DROIDS on the same day (44/09). He swears he doesn't have the issue, and the brief time we were together to check, it seemed like he consistenly had 1-2 bars more of 3G. He also has a Pre and an iPhone so DROID doesn't get much use. I was gonna wait 'til Dec update to confirm if firmware issue, but I don't know. I checked www.antennasearch.com and got these results for 4mi radius. Verizon store and Verizon CO well within the radius (CO is 2 blocks from my house.) I can't vouch for accuracy of the website...first time using it.


text:
This is the only liquid foundation I use when I am heading out quick or when I want a little coverage when I have less time to get ready so I want to put on something real quick. I'm so satisfied with how well it looks on me. It's so natural and leaves my face with a healthy glow and smooth finish, it has this beautiful luminous shine not too shiny but just enough to accentuate your cheek bones and make your skin look refreshed and polished.
When I have this on you wouldn't think I'm actually wearing anything at all. The coverage is good if you wear a few more drops than is recommended on the box it comes in.
I have very normal skin in terms of breakouts and blemishes so I don't have a lot to cover up. This foundation is a tiny bit oily on my t zone areas, but I wear translucent powder that diminishes the shine.
I recommend this product for people who want light to medium coverage and for those who want a foundation without all the harsh chemicals that most foundations carry. I did not buy the brush, as it seems like a waste of money; so I just use my own foundation brush by Nanshy F01 foundation brush.
Seen on me BareMinerals Bare Buff Liquid Foundation


text:
The McKernon Group is located in a beautifully restored antique barn in Brandon, Vermont. Once part of the state owned Brandon Training School, the building reflects the charm and tastefulness of our craftsmen featuring wide pine floors, exposed beams and reclaimed wood paneling. Our hometown of Brandon Vermont has recently created a wonderful web page that gives you much information about our area. Check it out on http://www.gatewaystobrandon.com
Our office building has wide-open spaces, colorful trim, wood beams, and wide pine floors. "Under one roof" you will find headquarters for a network of professional contractors and artisans involved in design, general construction, timber framing, energy audits, spray foam insulation and solar energy saving projects. In adjacent buildings we house our custom cabinet shop, panel shop, and storage for equipment, tools and material.


text:
No. 99-1613
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Assistant Attorney General
Deputy Solicitor General
Assistant to the Solicitor
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that respondent's conduct was protected by a First Amendment right of prison inmates to provide legal assistance to other inmates.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 99-1613
The question presented in this case is whether a prison inmate has a First Amendment right to provide assistance with pending criminal charges to another inmate who is represented by appointed defense counsel. The United States has a substantial interest in the resolution of that question. First, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operates more than 90 penal institutions across the country, and has adopted regulations governing inmate legal activities, see 28 C.F.R. 543.10-543.16, and inmate correspondence on legal and other matters, see 28 C.F.R. 540.10-540.25.1 The Court's decision in this case could bear on the constitutionality of those provisions or their enforcement, and affect the ability of BOP to advance legitimate penological interests by regulating such inmate activities. Second, the Attorney General is charged with protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997 et seq. The Court's decision in this case could affect that interest as well.
1. This case arises from a state prison inmate's effort to communicate with a fellow inmate about criminal charges pending against the latter. In 1995, respondent was incarcerated at the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana, where he was confined in the high security compound. As part of a prison program, respondent was trained as an "inmate law clerk" and, in that capacity, provided assistance with various matters to other inmates, including inmate Pat Tracy. In early 1995, respondent learned that Tracy had been charged by state authorities with the felony assault of a prison guard, Officer Glen Galle. The State had appointed a lawyer to represent Tracy, and prison authorities had transferred him to the prison's maximum security unit while the charges were pending. See Pet. App. 2-3, 19, 46.
Tracy requested respondent's assistance in defending against the charges. Pet. App. 3, 49. Prison officials denied that request because prison policy prohibited high security inmates, including respondent, from meeting with maximum security inmates, including Tracy. Id. at 3, 19. Prison officials sent a low security inmate law clerk to confer with Tracy, but Tracy declined to meet with him. Id. at 49. Respondent learned that Tracy had requested his assistance and began his own investigation into the altercation with Officer Galle. Id. at 3. On February 16, 1995, respondent sent Tracy the following letter:
Dear Pat:
How ya doing? I haven't wrote before now. I been busy fighting my charges. Finally got everything taken care of. I can't come up to max anymore. [T]he lowside clerks go up there now. [T]hat's why I haven't called you out like I used to. I do want to help you with your case against Galle. It wasn't your fault and I know he provoked whatever happened! Don't plead guilty because we can get at least 100 witnesses to testify that Galle is an over zealous guard who has a personal agenda to punish and harrass [sic] inmates. He has made homo-sexual advances toward certain inmates and that can be brought up into the record. There are petitions against him and I have tried to get the Unit Manager to do something about what he does in Close II, but all that happened is that I received two writeups from him myself as retaliation. So we must pursue this out of the prison system. I am filing a suit with everyone in Close I and II named against him. So you can use that too!
Another poiont is [sic] that he grabbed you from behind. You tell your lawyer to get ahold [sic] of me on this. Don't take a plea bargain unless it's for no more time.
I seen Damie for a little while when I was out. I never came over to Butte much. Lenny is living in lower D still and I don't speak to him much. His sister did something to Ted from what I heard. I don't know what. Well I will write again when I get this thing against Galle finished.
Later. . . .
Id. at 46-47 (bracketed material in original).
The letter was intercepted in accordance with prison policy and read by petitioner Robert Shaw, an officer in the maximum security unit. Pet. App. 4.2 On the basis of this letter, Shaw reported respondent for violations of three rules contained in the Inmate Disciplinary Policy (J.A. 6-33): "Insolence" (Rule 009); "Interference with Due Process Hearings" (Rule 022); and "Conduct Which Disrupts or Interferes with the Security or Orderly Operation of the Institution" (Rule 025).3 In his report, Shaw stated that the letter "accused CO Galle of being an over zealous guard who punishes and harasses inmates for a personal pleasure"; "accused CO Galle of making homo-sexual advances towards inmates"; and stated "that CO Galle retaliated against [respondent] by writing him up." J.A. 52. Shaw also reported that the letter "trie[d] to persuade Inmate Tracy to pursue certain actions that may disrupt a court hearing in which [respondent] is no part of," and that "[t]here is no evidence of any of the statements in th[e] letter to be fact." J.A. 54.
Following a hearing, respondent was found guilty of violating Rules 009 and 022 (but not Rule 025), and given a suspended sentence of 10 days' detention along with three reclassification points. Pet. App. 4. The Rule 009 violation was based on a finding that the letter states that "c/o Galle retaliated against inmate Murphy," and that this "statement indicates unprofessional actions which stand to intimidate the employee." J.A. 60. The Rule 022 violation was based on a finding that the statement in the letter "referring to c/o Galle making homo sexual advances to another inmate would result in disciplinary action against [the] stated employee." J.A. 62. Respondent's administrative appeal was denied. Pet. App. 4-5, 21.4
2. a. In October 1995, respondent filed this class action in the District Court for the District of Montana, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The complaint alleged that the actions of the named prison officials (petitioners here) in disciplining respondent in connection with the February 16, 1995, letter violated respondent's First Amendment rights, including the right "to provide legal assistance to other inmates"; abridged "the rights of inmates to access the courts by denying them the assistance of an inmate law clerk"; and violated due process on the ground that the regulations on which the disciplinary action was based are unduly vague or overbroad. J.A. 66-67. Respondent styled the suit as a class action on behalf of "all current and future inmates who may rely on inmate law clerks or 'jailhouse lawyers,'" and all inmates who rely on such "inmate law clerks or 'jailhouse lawyers.'" Pet. App. 43 (quoting Pl.'s Mot. to Certify Class).
b. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge (Pet. App. 28-44) recommended summary judgment for petitioners with respect to respondent's "access to the courts" claim, explaining that, by communicating with Tracy, respondent "was not attempting to pursue any legal claims or defenses on his own behalf." Id. at 37. But the magistrate judge recommended denial of summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims, finding that material disputed facts existed as to whether petitioners' actions were "rationally related to a legitimate penological interest," in accordance with the inquiry established by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), for reviewing constitutional challenges to prison regulation. Pet. App. 38; see id. at 37-40. The magistrate judge further recommended denial of class certification. Id. at 43-44.
c. The district court (Pet. App. 25-26) granted summary judgment in its entirety for petitioners and ordered that the case be dismissed. With respect to the First Amendment claim, the court first found that "[respondent] was not acting as an inmate law clerk when he wrote and sent the February 16, 1995, letter to inmate Pat Tracy," and that respondent's claims accordingly "must be analyzed without consideration of any privilege that law clerk status might provide." Id. at 23-24. The court then held that respondent's First Amendment claim failed under the "test of Turner v. Safley," "find[ing] that there is a valid, rational connection between the prison inmate correspondence policy and the objectives of prison order, security, and inmate rehabilitation." Id. at 25. The court further held that "[respondent's] First Amendment right to assist other inmates is, in this instance, inconsistent with his status as a prisoner and with the legitimate penological objectives of [the prison]." Id. at 24-25.
3. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Pet. App. 1-17. The court of appeals premised its analysis on the proposition that "inmates have a First Amendment right to assist other inmates with their legal claims." Id. at 6 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985)). The court next concluded that the "undisputed facts" concerning respondent's training as an inmate law clerk and his prior efforts to assist Tracy in that capacity "are enough to raise th[is] First Amendment right," and that "the Prison's decision to discipline [respondent] * * * undoubtedly interferes with that right." Id. at 8, 9.5 Finally, applying the Turner v. Safley inquiry, the court of appeals held that petitioners violated this First Amendment right in disciplining respondent, because their actions were an "'exaggerated response' to the Prison's interest in security and order." Id. at 15.
In applying Turner, the court of appeals acknowledged that "as a general matter" the regulations pursuant to which respondent was disciplined are rationally related to the prison's legitimate penological interests in promoting "security and order," and therefore might pass muster "as applied to inmate correspondence generally." Pet. App. 11. But the court reasoned that the regulations must be scrutinized "as applied to legal correspondence between an inmate performing the functions of a law clerk and the inmate he is advising," and held that when viewed from the perspective of this "particular category of protected expression," the regulations were an "exaggerated response" to the stated penological concerns. Id. at 11-13. According to the court, "the Prison's interest in security and order is at a low ebb when the correspondence in question is legal advice relating to a pending or potential legal matter," whereas the inmate's "First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates" is squarely implicated by such communications. Id. at 12.
The court of appeals remanded for the entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent, and for crafting of "an appropriate remedy." Pet. App. 17.6
One of the consequences of lawful incarceration is the loss of those First Amendment freedoms that are inconsistent with an individual's status as a prisoner and the legitimate penological objectives of the State. Inmates retain free speech rights, but prison regulation of inmate expression satisfies First Amendment review if it is "'reasonably related' to legitimate penological objectives," and "is not an 'exaggerated response' to those concerns." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 87 (1987). The court of appeals erred in holding that because respondent's letter contained an offer of legal assistance, it implicated not only the general right of free speech, but also a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates. That holding finds no support in precedent or principle, and should be rejected.
When inmates have no reasonable alternative to legal assistance from other inmates to gain access to the courts, a State may not prohibit inmates from providing such assistance. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969). But even in that circumstance, this Court has recognized only a right of inmates to receive available legal assistance, and not a right of inmates to dispense such assistance. Such a right would be especially unwarranted where, as here, an inmate is attempting to assist an inmate who is represented by appointed counsel. Likewise, this Court has recognized that the State may not interfere with an inmate's right of access to the courts by, for example, precluding access to law libraries or otherwise closing the door to judicial review. E.g., Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). But Bounds does not create "an abstract, freestanding right to
* * * legal assistance"; rather, it establishes a "right of access to the courts." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996).
Outside the prison context, the Court has held that individuals enjoy a First Amendment right to associate with others for legitimate common goals and to use litigation to advance those goals. E.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). But introducing that principle to the prison context would be inconsistent with the dictates of prison life. In Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125-126 (1977), this Court recognized that "[p]erhaps the most obvious of the First Amendment rights that are necessarily curtailed by confinement are those associational rights that the First Amendment protects outside of prison walls." In light of that fact, Jones held that inmates do not enjoy a First Amendment right to engage in union activities, even though such conduct lies within the heartland of protected First Amendment activity outside the prison walls. For similar reasons, the diminishment of "litigating capacity," especially the capacity to litigate on behalf of others, "is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Casey, 518 U.S. at 355.
As this Court has often recognized, prisons are populated by dangerous individuals with a demonstrated proclivity for anti-social behavior. When such individuals attempt to confer with one another, regardless of their stated purpose for doing so, legitimate penological concerns are implicated. The practice of "jailhouse lawyering" presents particular concerns. Inmates may use legal assistance to gain influence over other inmates, and for other means of self-aggrandizement, profit, or power. In addition, inmate-to-inmate correspondence on legal matters, as on other matters, can be used to pass contraband, form escape plans, develop or sustain gangs or other informal organizations, or threaten institutional security and safety in other ways. Holding that inmate legal assistance activities are entitled to special constitutional protection under the First Amendment would seriously undermine the ability of prison officials to address such concerns.
While respondent's conduct was not protected by a First Amendment right to dispense legal assistance, it does implicate the general right to free speech. Turner v. Safley supplies the standard for determining whether an inmate's free speech rights are violated in this context. Inmate correspondence may be restricted if prison officials establish that such regulation is "reasonably related" to valid penological objectives, and is not an "exaggerated response" to those objectives. 482 U.S. at 93. The court of appeals below purported to apply Turner, but it did so under the influence of its erroneous belief that respondent's conduct was protected by a First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates. That mistaken premise led the court of appeals, in effect, to treat the letter at issue as if it were entitled to heightened First Amendment protection simply because it touched on a pending legal proceeding against another inmate.
This Court has recognized many legitimate penological interests in restricting inmate correspondence. The fact that such correspondence concerns a legal matter may or may not bear on the legitimacy of the stated interests, or the relation between those interests and the particular correspondence at issue. The record before this Court does not conclusively demonstrate whether petitioners' decision to discipline respondent on the basis of his letter is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, or is an exaggerated response to those interests. Accordingly, we suggest that the Court should reverse the judgment below and remand for further consideration of respondent's First Amendment claim under a conventional Turner analysis, one that is not premised on the notion that inmates enjoy a First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates.
A convicted and imprisoned felon "retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). In a series of cases, this Court has considered the free speech rights of inmates to communicate with one another and with individuals on the outside. In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), this Court upheld a state regulation prohibiting inmates from corresponding with inmates at other institutions. See id. at 91-93. As the Court explained, "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Id. at 89. The Court reached a similar result in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989), where the Court, applying the Turner "reasonableness standard," upheld a BOP regulation restricting the types of publications inmates may receive from the outside. Id. at 413. See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 550-551 (1979) (upholding BOP regulation restricting incoming mail because it was a "rational response" to legitimate security concerns).
As the court of appeals observed, the letter at issue in this case, like the correspondence restricted in Turner and Abbott, "itself constitutes speech that, outside of the prison context, would doubtless enjoy the protection of the First Amendment." Pet. App. 8-9. Thus, in determining whether petitioners violated respondent's First Amendment rights by disciplining him on the basis of that letter, the court of appeals properly invoked the Turner standard. See id. at 10-14. But the court applied Turner based on an erroneous premise: that in addition to a general free speech right, prisoners enjoy a special "First Amendment right to assist other inmates with their legal claims." Id. at 6. Based on that premise, the court of appeals reasoned that respondent's letter fell into a "particular category of protected expression"-"legal correspondence between an inmate performing the functions of a law clerk and the inmate he is advising"-and that it, in effect, enjoyed heightened constitutional protection. Id. at 11. That was error, and that error tainted the court of appeals' entire Turner analysis. This Court has never recognized a First Amendment right of prison inmates to assist other inmates in legal affairs, and it should not do so here.
A. Prisoners Do Not Enjoy A First Amendment Right To Assist Other Inmates In Legal Matters
1. "Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. at 84. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 545. Thus, "[i]nmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment." O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. at 822. These protections include the right to free speech, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 407; to petition the government for the redress of grievances, Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969); and to free exercise of religion, O'Lone, 482 U.S. at 348. At the same time, however, "[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." O'Lone, 482 U.S. at 348 (quoting Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948)). See also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984) ("prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and * * * the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells").
Accordingly, this Court has held that, "[i]n a prison context, an inmate does not retain those First Amendment rights that are 'inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.'" Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129 (1977) (quoting Procunier, 417 U.S. at 822). The prison cell block is a starkly different world from the one in which First Amendment activity flourishes in free society. Prisons "are populated, involuntarily, by people who have been found to have violated one or more of the criminal laws established by society for its orderly governance." Ibid. "Prison life, and relations between the inmates themselves and between the inmates and prison officials or staff, contain the ever-present potential for violent confrontation and conflagation." Id. at 132. See McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 561-562. Not surprisingly, in this dangerous and volatile world, prisoners' First Amendment rights are substantially circumscribed compared with the rights enjoyed by individuals on the outside.
Taking into account the practical realities of prison life and the need for institutional safety and security, this Court has upheld under the First Amendment substantial restrictions on inmate-to-inmate correspondence, e.g., Turner, 482 U.S. at 91-93; receipt by inmates of certain types of publications, Abbott, 490 U.S. at 419; Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 551; inmate contacts with the media, Procunier, 417 U.S. at 828; inmate efforts to engage in union activities, Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. at 129-133; and inmate contact visits, Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 589 (1984). The Court has also upheld prison work assignment rules that have the effect of preventing prisoners from attending religious services. O'Lone, 482 U.S. at 350-353. More generally, the Court has emphasized that behind prison bars First Amendment rights "must be exercised with due regard for the 'inordinately difficult undertaking' that is modern prison administration." Abbott, 490 U.S. at 407 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 85).
2. This Court has not recognized a constitutional right-in the First Amendment, or any other part of our National Charter-of prison inmates to dispense legal advice. As this Court has long recognized, the Constitution does guarantee inmates a "right of access to the courts." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)). But in Casey, the Court emphasized that the constitutional "right of access" does not confer on inmates "an abstract, freestanding right to * * * legal assistance." Ibid. When prison inmates do not enjoy a "freestanding" constitutional right to receive legal assistance, it follows that they have no right to dispense such assistance. Inmate efforts to assist one another in legal affairs may be entitled to First Amendment protection as speech or expressive conduct. But the First Amendment does not cloak such activities with any added protection in the form of a constitutional right to practice "jailhouse law."
a. In Johnson v. Avery, the Court held unconstitutional a Tennessee regulation prohibiting inmates from assisting other inmates in "prepar[ing] Writs or other legal matters." 393 U.S. at 484. In so holding, the Court emphasized that "Tennessee does not provide an available alternative to the assistance provided by other inmates," such as a "public defender system." Id. at 488-489. "[U]nless and until the State provides some reasonable alternative to assist inmates in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief," the Court concluded that "it may not validly enforce a regulation * * * barring inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners." Id. at 490. At the same time, however, the Court acknowledged that, "[e]ven in the absence of such alternatives, the State may impose reasonable restrictions and restraints upon the acknowledged propensity of prisoners to abuse both the giving and the seeking of [legal] assistance." Ibid. (emphasis added).
Avery does not establish a constitutional right of prison inmates to provide legal assistance. Avery protects only the ability of inmates to gain "access
* * * to the courts." 393 U.S. at 485. See Casey, 518 U.S. at 350. Because Tennessee did not make available to its inmates other means of legal assistance, the Court found that the State's rule preventing inmates from assisting one another had the "effect[]" of "forbidding illiterate or poorly educated prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions." 393 U.S. at 487. See ibid. ("For all practical purposes, if such prisoners cannot have the assistance of a 'jail-house lawyer,' their possibly valid constitutional claims will never be heard in any court."). The Court therefore invalidated that rule "until the State provides some reasonable alternative to assist inmates in the preparation of petitions," id. at 490, in order to ensure that inmates would be afforded adequate access to the courts.7
In claiming a First Amendment right to assist other inmates in legal matters, respondent does not argue that such assistance is necessary to ensure access to the courts, for himself or anyone else.8 Nor could he, inasmuch as the inmate he sought to assist was represented by appointed counsel. Pet. App. 3. Instead, respondent claims, and the court of appeals embraced, something entirely different: a "First Amendment right to assist other inmates with their legal claims," without regard to whether such assistance is necessary for them to enter the courts. Id. at 6.
This right finds no support in the cases following Avery, affirming the "right of access to the courts." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 350. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 821 ("It is now established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.").9 As this Court recently recounted in Casey, the Court has given effect to "that right by prohibiting state prison officials from actively interfering with inmates' attempts to prepare legal documents or file them, and by requiring state courts to waive filing fees or transcript fees for indigent inmates." 518 U.S. at 350 (citations omitted). Respondent does not, and could not, claim that the State is creating any such interference here. Nor does respondent claim that, as a result of petitioners' actions, he was actually "hindered [in] his efforts to pursue a legal claim," as required by Casey. Id. at 351. His First Amendment claim accordingly finds no footing in Bounds.
b. Beyond Bounds, the court of appeals suggested that the inmate's right to undertake "legal activities on behalf of other inmates implicated associational rights protected by the First Amendment." Pet. App. 9 (emphasis added; citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also Br. in Opp. 5. In particular, the Ninth Circuit (see Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 531) has reasoned that this activity is akin to the conduct this Court held protected under the First Amendment in NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), and United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576 (1971). This Court, however, has never extended the reasoning of Button or its progeny to the prison context and, as we explain, doing so here would require overlooking the fundamental restriction in associational rights that is a necessary and constitutional fact of lawful imprisonment.
Button involved a challenge to a state law preventing the NAACP and its members and lawyers from "associat[ing] for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights." 371 U.S. at 428. The Court concluded that the activities at issue were "modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments," and set aside the state law. Id. at 428-429. In doing so, the Court explained that "the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner's activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed." Id. at 444. United Transportation Union is to the same effect. It involved a challenge to a state decree that prevented a union from providing legal assistance to its members or their families. Drawing from Button, the Court held that this activity was protected by the First Amendment, and that the decree prohibiting it was invalid. 401 U.S. at 580-581, 585. See also In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 434 (1978).
Button and its progeny thus recognize a First Amendment right to associate with others for legitimate common goals and to use litigation to advance those goals. Cf. Walters v. National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 335 (1985) (distinguishing between the First Amendment "right to associate collectively for the common good," and "the individual interest in best prosecuting a claim"). But the considerations on which that principle is grounded do not readily apply in the prison context. Indeed, this Court has recognized not only that "[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights" enjoyed by the free, but also that "[p]erhaps the most obvious of the First Amendment rights that are necessarily curtailed by confinement are those associational rights that the First Amendment protects outside of prison walls." Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. at 125-126 (citation omitted); see also id. at 126 (an "inmate's 'status as a prisoner' and the operational realities of a prison dictate restrictions on the associational rights among inmates."). Among the associational rights necessarily curtailed by lawful incarceration is the right to associate for the purpose of providing legal advice.
Prisoners' Labor Union involved a First Amendment challenge to the actions of state prison officials prohibiting inmates from soliciting other inmates to join a prisoners' labor union, barring the union from meeting, and blocking the bulk distribution of union publications. 433 U.S. at 121. These activities squarely implicated First Amendment rights enjoyed by individuals outside the prison walls. See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 537 (1945). But this Court concluded that the State's ban on such activities inside the prison walls was permissible, and that "[t]he invocation of the First Amendment, whether the asserted rights are speech or associational, does not change this analysis." 433 U.S. at 129. In so holding, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the "prison context" in analyzing First Amendment challenges to prison regulation, id. at 129, and, in particular, recognized that "numerous associational rights are necessarily curtailed by the realities of confinement" and "must give way to the reasonable considerations of penal management Id. at 132.
For similar reasons, lawful imprisonment curtails the right of inmates to assist one another in legal matters. Indeed, this Court has recognized that, while prisoners are entitled to access to the courts to attack their own sentences or conditions of confinement, "[i]mpairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Casey, 518 U.S. at 355. Legitimate penal objectives support that conclusion when it comes to the practice of "jailhouse law." While supervised inmate legal assistance programs can serve many valuable ends, it is "indisputable" that jailhouse lawyers "are sometimes a menace to prison discipline," and that prisoners have an "acknowledged propensity
* * * to abuse both the giving and the seeking of [legal] assistance." Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. at 488,
490. In his dissent in Avery, Justice White elaborated on these concerns:
Many assert that the aim of the jailhouse lawyer is not the service of truth and justice, but rather self-aggrandizement, profit, and power. According to prison officials, whose expertise in such matters should be given some consideration, the jailhouse lawyer often succeeds in establishing his own power structure, quite apart from the formal system of warden, guards, and trusties which the prison seeks to maintain. Those whom the jailhouse lawyer serves may come morally under his sway as the one hope of their release, and repay him not only with obedience but with what minor gifts and other favors are available to them. When a client refuses to pay, violence may result, in which the jailhouse lawyer may be aided by his other clients.
Id. at 499-500 (footnote omitted).10
Cloaking inmate legal assistance activities with special First Amendment protection would raise other legitimate penological concerns. For example, it would confer on inmates who provide legal assistance a type of special status that often is disruptive in the prison world, where uniformity is vital to ensuring order. Cf. Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. at 127-129. And it would present additional opportunities for inmates- under the guise of providing legal assistance-to formulate escape plans, pass contraband through correspondence designated as "legal," and carry out other illegal activities both inside and outside the prison walls. As we discuss below, this Court has recognized many of these same concerns in upholding regulations restricting inmate correspondence on general matters. See pp. 25-26, infra.11
At the same time, inmate legal assistance programs serve many salutary ends, including helping to ensure that illiterate or non-English speaking inmates have meaningful access to the courts. Prison officials may permit inmates to provide legal assistance to other inmates. Indeed, many States have adopted "inmate law clerk assistance" programs like that of Montana, and permit inmates to assist one another in legal matters in accordance with other prison rules. Similarly, BOP regulations permit an inmate to provide legal assistance to another inmates in the same institution, though they provide that "[t]he Warden at any institution may impose limitations on an inmate's assistance to another inmate in the interest of institution security, good order, or discipline." 28 C.F.R. 543.11(f)(1) and (4). Properly managed, those programs can assist inmates without undermining valid correctional objectives. But whether or not such programs are viewed as good prison policy, the Federal Constitution does not guarantee inmates the right to assist other inmates in legal matters. Cf. Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. at 137 (Burger, C.J., concurring).12
B. Respondent's First Amendment Claim Is Governed By A Conventional Turner Analysis
1. Prison inmates do enjoy a First Amendment right of free speech. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 407. And they retain that right when they speak on legal matters. As a result, there remains the question whether respondent was impermissibly penalized under the First Amendment based on the content of his letter. Turner v. Safley supplies the standard for analyzing that question. In Turner, the Court held that prison regulation of inmate correspondence is permissible if it is "reasonably related to valid corrections goals," including "institutional security and safety," and "it is not an exaggerated response to those objectives." 482 U.S. at 93.13 The Turner analysis governs both "facial" and "as applied" challenges. See id. at 99-100 (upholding "facial validity" of regulation, but remanding for determination whether regulation was valid as applied); Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 419 (same). Respondent brings an as-applied challenge to the enforcement of petitioners' disciplinary rules against him on the basis of the content of his February 16, 1995, letter. See J.A. 66 (Compl. ¶ 17); Br. in Opp. 3, 8-9.
2. a. This Court has recognized many legitimate penological interests in restricting, and even prohibiting, forms of inmate correspondence. "[C]ommunication with other felons is a potential spur to criminal behavior." Turner, 482 U.S. at 91. Inmate correspondence "can be used to communicate escape plans," "arrange assaults and other violent acts," and develop prison gangs and other "informal organizations that threaten the core functions of prison administration, maintaining safety and internal security." Id. at 92 (citing G. Camp & C. Camp, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prison Gangs: Their Nature and Impact on Prisons 64-65 (1985)). Correspondence among inmates in heightened security units "present[s] special disciplinary and security concerns." Casey, 518 U.S. at 361; see 62 Fed. Reg. 4890, 4891 (1997) (legal assistance to inmates in special housing is restricted "[f]or reasons of security, discipline, and good order"). In explaining the Montana inmate correspondence policy, petitioners have cited many of the same considerations. See J.A. 96-97.
In reviewing restrictions on inmate speech, it is imperative to take into account the prison context. Language that may be deemed simply vulgar or tasteless outside the prison can amount to "fighting words" within it. Thus, for example, BOP regulations specifically authorize prison authorities to restrict inmate correspondence containing "gratuitous profanity." 28 C.F.R. 540.15(5); see also 28 C.F.R. 541.13 (inmates may be disciplined for "abusive or obscene language") (Table 3, Code 404); Abbott, 490 U.S. at 407 (conduct that is "seemingly innocuous to laymen" may "have potentially significant implications for the order and security of the prison"). Language that "draw[s] inferences about [others'] beliefs, sexual orientation, or gang affiliation" can be particularly disruptive in the prison yard. 490 U.S. at 412. "Insolence" also threatens prison order. 28 C.F.R. 541.13 (Table 3, Code 312). In addition, prison officials need not wait for disturbances to erupt; it is "rational" for authorities to restrict communications "that, although not necessarily 'likely' to lead to violence, are determined * * * to create an intolerable risk of disorder under the conditions of a particular prison at a particular time." Abbott, 490 U.S. at 417.
"In the volatile prison environment, it is essential that prison officials be given broad discretion" in determining what steps are necessary "to prevent
* * * disorder." Abbott, 490 U.S. at 413. This Court has acknowledged "that the judiciary is ill-equipped to deal with the difficult and delicate problems of prison management," and therefore "afford[s] considerable deference to the determinations of prison administrators who, in the interest of security, regulate the relations between prisoners and the outside world." Id. at 407-408 (internal quotation marks omitted). See Turner, 482 U.S. at 77-78. When, as here, "a state penal system is involved, federal courts have * * * additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities." Id. at 85.
b. Inmate-to-inmate correspondence on legal matters may, or may not, raise the sort of legitimate penological concerns implicated by other types of inmate correspondence. As the letter at issue in this case demonstrates, inmate correspondence on legal matters can easily touch on non-legal matters.14 While routine discussion of legal matters or proceedings may not raise legitimate concerns, accusations, threats, gratuitous profanity, or other disruptive or inflammatory remarks made before, after, or in the course of discussing legal matters or proceedings may well raise legitimate concerns. Inmate correspondence on legal matters, like inmate correspondence on other matters, can also be used to pass contraband, speak in code, form disruptive prison alliances, or prompt illegal activity or prison unrest. In short, the fact that an inmate's letter discusses a legal matter or proceeding, in itself, does not eliminate the legitimate penological concerns presented by inmate correspondence in general.15
On the other hand, consistent with the First Amendment, prison officials may not penalize inmates simply because they disagree with the "content of the[ir] expression," or for an "arbitrary or irrational" reason. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Cf. Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983) (even in a nonpublic forum, government may not "suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view"). This Court has held, however, that when prison administrators "draw distinctions" between different types of speech or communications "solely on the basis of their potential implications for prison security," they are regulating in a "neutral" and, thus, constitutional fashion-provided that their actions are "rationally related" to asserted penological interests such as safety or security. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 415-416.
3. The court of appeals applied Turner in determining whether petitioners properly disciplined respondent on the basis of his letter. See Pet. App. 10-14. But it did so based on the mistaken premise that respondent enjoyed a First Amendment right to provide legal services to other inmates. Thus, the court of appeals emphasized that it was dealing with a "particular category of protected expression"-"legal correspondence between an inmate performing the functions of a law clerk and the inmate he is advising." Id. at 11. The court noted that "the enforcement of the prison regulations against Murphy infringes on [respondent's] First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates." Id. at 12. And the court observed that "the Prison's interest in security and order is at a low ebb when the correspondence in question is legal advice relating to a pending or potential case." Ibid. In short, the court treated respondent's letter as if it were entitled to heightened constitutional protection because it was sent by an "inmate law clerk," and, at the same time, unduly discounted the legitimate penological interests in restricting inmate correspondence on all matters, including on legal matters.
Because the court of appeals decided respondent's First Amendment claim based on an erroneous legal standard, we suggest that the appropriate relief is to reverse and remand for application of the correct legal standard. While petitioners have provided substantial reasons for adopting the inmate correspondence policy that permitted them to review respondent's letter to inmate Tracy, see J.A. 95-98, we do not believe that the summary judgment record before this Court conclusively demonstrates the particular penological objectives relied upon by petitioners in disciplining respondent in connection with his letter, or whether under the circumstances petitioners' actions amounted to an "exaggerated response" to those objectives. Accordingly, we do not take a position on whether, under a proper application of Turner, petitioners impermissibly disciplined respondent based on his letter. Cf. Turner, 482 U.S. at 100 (remanding for determination whether "correspondence regulation had been applied by prison officials in an arbitrary and capricious manner"); Abbott, 490 U.S. at 419 (remanding for "examination of the validity of the regulations as applied" to particular publications).
The judgment of court of appeals should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Respectfully submitted.
Solicitor General
Assistant Attorney General
Deputy Solicitor General
Assistant to the Solicitor
1 For example, BOP regulations permit inmates to provide legal assistance to other inmates in the same institution, but provide that "[t]he Warden at any institution may impose limitations on an inmate's assistance to another inmate in the interest of institution security, good order, or discipline." 28 C.F.R. 543.11(f)(1) and (4). Correspondence between inmates at the same institution may be restricted with respect to inmates placed in segregation or presenting security risks. 28 C.F.R. 540.15, 540.16. Correspondence between inmates at separate institutions is not allowed unless inmates are immediate family members or witnesses or parties in the same legal action. 28 C.F.R. 540.17. Incoming correspondence from courts or attorneys is treated as "special mail" and may be inspected but generally is not read or copied by prison officials; outgoing special mail from inmates to courts or attorneys is labeled as such and neither screened nor opened by prison officials. See 28 C.F.R. 540.18, 540.19.
2 Under the prison's Inmate Correspondence Policy (J.A. 34- 51), "[m]ail from other correctional facilities and mail to prisoners in Maximum Security and Administrative Segregation may be read." J.A. 46; see J.A. 97. This policy sets forth special provisions governing "privileged correspondence" with "licensed attorneys" and certain public officials. J.A. 34-36. But correspondence with "inmate law clerks" is not subject to those provisions. See J.A. 97.
3 The prison's rules are set forth at J.A. 10, 14, and 15, along with other provisions of the Inmate Disciplinary Policy. BOP's inmate disciplinary policy is set forth at 28 C.F.R. Pt. 541. Under that policy, inmates may be disciplined for similar misconduct, including "[i]nsolence towards a staff member" (Code 312); "[l]ying or providing a false statement to a staff member" (Code 313); "[u]sing abusive or obscene language" (Code 404); "[u]nauthorized use of mail" (Code 406); and "[c]onduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the institution" (Code 499). 28 C.F.R. 541.13 (Table 3).
4 Tracy did not receive a copy of respondent's letter until June 1996, by which time he had pleaded guilty to the felony assault charges. Pet. App. 49.
5 In his brief in opposition (at 5), respondent argued that he was not acting in his capacity as an "inmate law clerk" when he sent his letter. This argument is contradicted by respondent's prior statements, see Br. in Opp. App. 2 ("On or about February 16, 1995, I wrote a letter to Pat Tracy, in which I gave him legal advice concerning the charges pending against him."); accord J.A. 75, 78, as well as the allegations set forth in his Complaint (¶ 13), J.A. 65. In any event, for the reasons explained below, we agree that whether respondent in fact was attempting to provide legal assistance to Tracy is "immaterial" (Br. in Opp. 5) to the resolution of his First Amendment claim.
6 The court of appeals did not reach respondent's "'right of access to the courts' arguments." Pet. App. 15. The court reached and rejected respondent's due process challenge, concluding that "[w]hile clearer language could be imagined, the challenged regulations are the sort that every prison enforces in order to maintain order." Id. at 16. Neither the "right of access" nor the due process claim is before this Court. See Pet. i.
7 In Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, a prison inmate challenged a state regulation permitting prison authorities to open and inspect incoming mail from attorneys. In arguing that this practice was unconstitutional, the inmate relied in part on the constitutional right of "access to the courts" recognized in Avery. 418 U.S. at 576. This Court rejected that rationale, stating that this right "has not been extended * * * to apply further than protecting the ability of an inmate to prepare a petition or complaint." Ibid. The plaintiff in Wolff also challenged a prison regulation preventing inmates from assisting one another in civil actions. Drawing from Avery, the Court held that the key issue was whether the prison provided a "reasonable alternative" to inmate legal assistance in such actions, and remanded for a determination whether having one inmate serve as a "legal adviser" amounted to adequate "legal assistance under the reasonable-alternative standard of Avery." Id. at 580.
8 Respondent has raised a separate "right of access" claim, but that claim is not presented here. See note 6, supra. In addition, his request to certify this action as a class action on behalf of himself and other inmates was denied, Pet. App. 43-44, and also is not before this Court.
9 Neither Bounds nor this Court's subsequent cases has positively identified the source of this constitutional right. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 367 ("We have described the right articulated in Bounds as a 'consequence' of due process, as an 'aspect' of equal protection, or as an 'equal protection guarantee. In no instance, however, have we engaged in rigorous constitutional analysis of the basis for this asserted right.") (Thomas, J., concurring) (citations omitted); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. at 523 ("prisoners have the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts").
10 See also, e.g., Schenck v. Edwards, 921 F. Supp. 679, 684 (E.D. Wash. 1996) (acknowledging "problems [experienced by prison authorities] with inmates blackmailing and extorting one another based on debts incurred for legal work performed," and with "inmates becoming angry and violent with inmates who drafted and/or filed pleadings or legal materials for inmate litigators when litigators' expectations were not met or the consequences of the legal action turned out to be detrimental to the litigators"), aff'd, 133 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); Weaver v. Toombs, 756 F. Supp. 335, 339 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (prison authorities have legitimate interest in preventing "potential exploitation" by inmates providing legal assistance), aff'd, 915 F.2d 1574 (6th Cir. 1990).
11 Recognizing a First Amendment right of inmates to practice jailhouse law also would invite a new avenue for prisoner litigation challenging the adequacy of prison libraries or other legal support services that this Court has recently sought to quell. Cf. Lewis v. Casey, supra.
12 Most courts of appeals that have considered the issue agree that inmates do not enjoy a constitutional right to provide legal assistance. See, e.g., Goff v. Nix, 113 F.3d 887, 890 (8th Cir. 1997) ("A jailhouse lawyer has no independent right to provide legal advice."); Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir. 1993) ("[T]here is no constitutional right to assist other prisoners with their legal matters."); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 950 (10th Cir. 1990) (inmates "do[] not have a protected interest in providing legal representation to other inmates"); Gassler v. Rayl, 862 F.2d 706, 708 (8th Cir. 1988) ("[A]n inmate simply does not have the right to provide his fellow inmates with legal assistance."). Accord Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 43 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Williams v. Nix, 1 F.3d 712, 716 (8th Cir. 1993). As the Eighth Circuit reasoned in Gassler, "[i]t is well established that inmates have a constitutional right of access to the court." 862 F.2d at 707. " This right entitles inmates to receive legal assistance from fellow inmates unless prison officials provide reasonable alternative assistance." Ibid. (citing Johnson v. Avery, supra). But "an inmate simply does not have the right to provide his fellow inmates with legal assistance." Id. at 708.
Similarly, there is no basis in our history or tradition for recognizing a First Amendment right of prisoners to provide legal assistance to other inmates. Cf. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 382 ("The rise of the prison law library and other legal assistance programs is a recent phenomenon, and one generated largely by the federal courts.") (Thomas, J., concurring) (citing studies).
13 In determining whether a regulation passes muster under Turner, the Court considers four criteria. First, the Court looks to whether there is "a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it." 482 U.S. at 89 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the Court looks to whether "there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates." Id. at 90. Third, the Court considers the "impact [that] accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally." Ibid. Fourth, the Court looks for "the existence of obvious, easy alternatives." Ibid. See Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414-418 (discussing factors).
14 Recognizing a First Amendment right of inmates to provide legal assistance to other inmates-and to correspond on such matters-would invite fact-intensive litigation over whether an inmate was acting in his capacity as a law clerk or assistant when he undertook a particular act, or whether an inmate was offering legal advice or assistance, and thus was entitled to such protection. Indeed, respondent here has taken inconsistent positions on whether he was in fact acting as a law clerk when he sent the February 16, 1995, letter. See note 5, supra.
15 This case does not present any occasion to consider whether, or to what extent, inmates are constitutionally entitled to correspond with licensed legal counsel outside the prison walls. The Court has recognized, however, that such correspondence presents similar concerns to those presented by inmate-to-inmate correspondence. See Abbott, 490 U.S. at 413; cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 575. On the other hand, incoming and outcoming correspondence with lawyers implicates the First Amendment rights of those who are not prisoners. BOP and virtually all States, including Montana, have adopted separate rules governing the handling of such legal mail. See notes 1, 2, supra.


text:
In my opinion this was the most talked about new technology at the show and not because Amazon made their first debut at CEDIA this year, but for the fact that it has so much integration potential. I visited a number of booths that showed just what is possible. Lutron, a leader in the lighting control for residential and commercial markets demoed a system using an Amazon Echo to control lighting, audio and shades in a hands-free and simple to use way, using just your voice. It was quite impressive to see and experience. Unfortunately it was not without limitations; mainly that none of the parts can be controlled independently. For example, say you want to adjust only audio volume, it can't be done by voice, you have to use Lutron's Pico remote. Alexa was really only able to a set a scene in the room, not control any individual parts of the system. This is perfect for users wanting a super easy to use interface, but not for power users wanting full control of every aspect of their homes. Seeing other demos, and the sheer excitement surrounding this breakthrough technology, shows how much potential voice control has for the future. I expect to see it control home automation systems very soon, if not by the time you read this.
Virtual reality is a fast-growing innovation that put on a good show at CEDIA this year. I got my first chance to try it out, and I must say it is a truly amazing experience. I tried a flight simulator, took a walk through the jungle and tested my skills at rally racing. Each game was a fun and highly-immersive experience. I feel VR will be a key part of next-generation gaming consoles and possibly home automation and movies. It won't be long before we see this technology become affordable and more widely available.
This solution product really caught my eye. It holds a current generation iPad mini (it's also available for other iPad models) flush to a wall and is made from a single block of sleek aluminum. It has an extremely thin and clean bezel that is nearly invisible. It offers charging for the iPad via a single gang junction box installed behind the mount with a clever cable management solution to keep the power cable out of sight. Overall it's a really cool and clean looking iPad mounting option for a control system. Out of all the competing mounting products out there, I like this one the best.
Every year at CEDIA you can expect a unique and very diverse showing of speakers, amplifiers, DACs and anything else audio. Here are some of my favorites from the show.
James Loudspeakers – steampunk themed tower speakers. I had read an article about these on James's website being built for a custom client request, so you can imagine my reaction when I discovered a pair being displayed at the show. It was a real treat to see them in person. They were not hooked up so unfortunately I did not get to hear how they sounded, but I'm confident they sound as good as they look. I love seeing unique products like this that really shows what a manufacturer is capable of.
MBL Audio – I was invited to sit in on a private demo of MBL's new line of speakers. My first thought upon sitting in the listening room were, "these are works of art, not speakers". As soon as the first song started playing I realized they were indeed both. Very clear, tight and bright sound flowed from these masterpieces. I did notice that the imaging changed as I moved to left and right sides of the room. They sounded best when sitting front and center. Moving to either side gave a one-dimensional feeling, so when I returned to the sweet spot, the full soundstage was revealed. I was amazed at their clarity and how they completely disappeared as I listened. I am really grateful to MBL for inviting me to try these out with my own hears. They are truly amazing speakers from an equally amazing company.


text:
It's a question that has plagued humanity for centuries: How many times can an asshole trust fund kid frat boy who is a meme embodied use the term "slampiece" in a single email? Luckily for us all, someone sent Jezebel the answer this past weekend. Apparently, the following is a real-life email that one dude sent to his fraternity listserv, in hopes of starting his own hedge fund so he can get rich and "work close with a slampiece." You know, the American dream.
Jezebel, in good taste, has chosen to keep the identity of this classy dude anonymous, but writer Anna Breslaw assures us: "This a real-life email from a person who is not Sack Lodge from Wedding Crashers, but an actual human being who has numerals at the end of his name. I have taken to The Google and found out who his father is; it is not a surprise."
The email, in full:
——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: firstname.lastname@example.com
To: firstname.lastname@example.com
Sent: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Great Job Opportunity - PLEASE READ
As some of you may already know, I have been interested in the world of finance for some time. After a series of summer internships, however, I have somehow found myself without a full-time job offer for the upcoming year. Fuckin' Obama's fault for strangling this economy.
Luckily, due to the tough job market, my dad has agreed to let me access my trust fund early (mid 7-figures) to start a relatively small hedge fund, ___ Ventures, after graduation. I'm emailing you guys today to let you know that, for the rest rest of the year, I will be recruiting 2 full-time employees and 1 intern to help me get this off the ground.
With my financial expertise, help from my powerful father and connections, and a skilled team, I have no doubt that this fund will rise quickly to prominence. We'll all get filthy rich and, inevitably, bag hot slampieces. If possible, I'd love to give all 3 of these positions to my brothers.
Although you would technically be working for me, I like to think of it more as a team effort. I know that my education and background qualifies me to lead a venture of this sort, and I would really appreciate your support. Below are the job descriptions. If interested, please email me a resume, cover letter, and paragraph describing why you would be excited to work with me.
Position 1: Lead Investment Analyst
-Because I will spend most of my time networking, raising money, and handshaking with industry bigwigs, I need someone with a strong quant background to take care of the majority of actual analysis.
-Finance experience preferred but not required
-Compensation: Low six figures with benefits
Postion 2: Office Manager/Secretary
-Although this may not sound like the most prestigious role within a fund, someone needs to hand the day-to-day operations and while I and my Lead Investment Analyst conduct strategies to make us all rich. This person would also be in charge of hiring hot secretaries for us to ogle (and possibly slam) during the workday.
-Detail oriented person needed
-Compensation: $70,000 base with benefits (like working close with a slampiece)
Position 3: Intern/Pledge
-This position is available to all sophomores and juniors. Think of it like pledging my hedge fund (so xxx and xxx need not apply)
-I will judge this position primarily based on how hard you pledged and how I rate your slampiece pulling ability
-Compensation: $25/hr with a good opportunity for full-time employment post graduation. I'm really excited to get this going, and I hope some of you will be joining me. Let me know if you have any questions at all.
The information in this email is most likely totally worthless and lacking of any benefit to society and/or anyone in particular. If you received this communication in error, then please immediately delete all of your saved porn & energetically beat yourself about the head. All other more intelligent actions taken in response to this information are prohibited, so there.
...aaaaaaand we just lost our faith in humanity a little. How many polo shirts with popped collars do you think this guy wears at once?
[via Jezebel]


text:
Gun company ownership is being centralized by Freedom Group and Cerberus
Source: bulletin.accurateshooter.comCerberus Capital Management could cut off all gun and ammunition sales in the US. Many Americans are totally unaware that Cerberus has for the past decade acquired nearly every gun and ammunition maker in the United States and consolidated them into a holding company called The Freedom Group.
There has been some rumors that George Soros is connected or even owns Cerberus. This have been refuted by a number of people looking into the claim. It doesn't make it any less concerning though. Cerberus has a lot of it's tentacles in the pie.
"Cerberus, the hound from hell, was the guard dog of the gates of hades (hell)". If you haven't heard about Cerberus before. Read this article: Cerberus: Guarding the Gates of Hell - Dynecorp, Pegasus, BP, Goldman Sachs - Gulf Oil Disaster Planned?
Cerberus Capital Managment, through its Freedom Group holding company, has acquired yet another well-known gun industry company: Barnes Bullets. On December 31, 2009, Freedom Group, Inc. entered into a purchase agreement to acquire certain assets of Barnes Bullets.
In recent years, Cerberus/Freedom Group has acquired Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin, H&R, DMPS and other smaller firearms-related companies. By acquiring Barnes, the Freedom Group gains entry into the ammunition component business at a time when brass, bullets, and powder remain in high demand. As the Freedom Group continues to build a vertically integrated firearms-related mega-corp, one wonders if Cerberus will look to acquire a powder-maker next. Freedom Group already sells Remington-brand factory-loaded ammunition.
Barnes Bullets, located in Mona, Utah, is the industry-leading supplier of copper bullets, including copper-tin composite core bullets. Barnes is a major player in the "lead-free" bullet market. This has become important as lead-core bullets have been banned in many hunting areas, and lead-free bullets are required in many indoor shooting facilities. Barnes Bullets will continue day-to-day operations at Utah facility under the guidance of company founder, Randy Brooks.
Ted Torbeck, CEO of the Freedom Group, Inc. stated: "With the acquisition of Barnes, the Freedom Group continues to demonstrate our commitment to the ammunition business. Barnes offers a premium line of high performance bullets for the hunting and shooting communities; and for law enforcement, military and commercial consumers. We are excited about their R&D capabilities and the breadth of the products they bring to our portfolio."
Freedom Group is now one of the world's largest producers of guns and ammo. Freedom Group brands include Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS/Panther Arms, Marlin, H&R, NEF, LC Smith, Parker, EOTAC, AAC, Dakota and INTC. The company distributes its products throughout the U.S. and in over 80 foreign countries.
Source: accurateshooter.com


text:
Shared Workspace for the Hour, Day, Week, or Month.
Rockwall OpenSpaceis a new coworking space for Rockwall. We are a community of local writers, entrepreneurs, artists, remote workers and friends who have experienced that we are far more productive and happy working around others than working alone. At its best, coworking demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
If you find yourself thinking "I love what I'm doing, but it would be great to work around like minded friends instead of alone," then we are with you. At Rockwall OpenSpace we work with some of the most dedicated, passionate, and creative people in the Rockwall area. So get out of the the house, the noisy coffee shop or the library and schedule a tour.
If you need a space to make your pitch, close a deal or brainstorm with your team, we have a fully equipped conf...
If you need the predictability of having your own space for you or a small team, reserve a conference room today...
RECENT BLOG POSTRewards Keep Us Coming Back for More
Have you ever wondered why you keep going back for another donut after you know you've had enough? Are you baffled by people that can push themselves through the pain of running 26.2 miles just for fun? The reason that both of these things happen is the reward at the end of the action. By understanding rewards, you can learn how to encourage yourself to build powerful habits that...continue
"Rockwall OpenSpace is an excellent addition to the lakeside community. There is a large number of work-at-home professionals in the Rockwall area, and Rockwall OpenSpace provides a professional and friendly work environment for those that need or want the collaboration with other work-at-home professionals and entrepreneurs. The own...more"
"The open work space is all brand new and is nice for working around other like minded people. It's located within walking distance of the downtown restaurants and shops and is above a Tea shop. Hard to beat that. The guys are great and I look forward to future events and collaborating with other folks on some of my ideas. I highly r...more"
Phone: 972.643.8394
506 N Goliad, Ste. 200 Rockwall, TX 75087


text:
this is an experiment i am undertaking with crispin. have a look here and let me know what you think. please submit as much as you like.
i wonder whether this will take off.
x x x
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
rejection digest
Posted by Socrates Adams-Florou at 15:15
4 comments:
- sarah san said...
FUCK YEAH. you can do it socrates. you are a mind stew.
- 9 February 2010 at 16:18
- Socrates Adams-Florou said...
i'm trying my best. it's all i can do.
- 9 February 2010 at 16:34
- Matt DeBenedictis said...
This is a firecracker. Big explosion. Massive delight.
- 15 February 2010 at 06:38
- Annabel Wigoder said...
HA! amazing
i've definitely got a stack lying around...
- 15 February 2010 at 10:03
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Spotify, Taylor Swift Breaks Up, Swift Pulls Her Entire Calalogue Form Spotify.
Spotify, Taylor Swift Breaks Up, Swift Pulls Her Entire Calalog Form Spotify. http://snapvoip.blogspot.com/
Worlds favorite singer, Taylor Swift and Spotify, worlds largest streaming service seem to have no love between them, even though, Spotify is sending her love filled pleas. I expected something like this when Music companies complained about lost sales due to streaming services. Even Apple's iTunes lost to the tune of 13% in downloads / sales. RIAA reported increase, a huge jump in streaming subscriptions.
Well all before this Taylor Swift went on WSJ talking about her music being a love affair and more;
"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art."
Hope it will not be a sad one. Publications like The Washington Post, did not like her piece on WSJ and criticized her, ironically referring to her as a streaming enthusiastic;
"Streaming enthusiasts such as Swift should remember: Twenty percent of music on Spotify has never been streamed — so much that there's a kind of song rescue shelter, Forgotify, to memorialize it."
Anyway there are no other news about the incident other than the plea by Spotify and it's 40 million users. I doubt that all 40 million listen to her but it could be as her album 1989, looks to hit platinum.
Her songs are available through other streaming services, Rdio, Pandora and Deezer and even if it is not, I will not miss her as she is not my type. But there are a lots and lots of people who do and for their sake, I hope this will turn out to be a happy love song.
Spotify via engadget


text:
Apothecary is where all my posts about body stuff lives. I've organized my site so that you can follow a recipe I've already written, read about individual ingredients to understand why different constituents work together, or explore information on my site and others' to create your own recipes.
Herbalism is using plants for their medicinal purposes – it's using a salve or drinking a tea to help your body feel better. Plants have been used traditionally all over the world for different purposes; you can check out an overview of ailments for which plants have been used for their actions and characteristics.
Raw materials – herbs, essential oils, and carrier oils, among other ingredients – can be used to make all kinds of products. Deodorant covers alternatives to store-bought deodorants and antiperspirants. Hair deals with hair gels, oils, and butters as well as hair removal. Lip Balm is all about chapsticks. Salves are balms that help everything from eczema to headaches to cramps. Soap talks about cold process soap making.
Besides recipes and information on raw materials, I've got a few helpful tools. Conversion charts help you deal with the disaster that is the imperial measuring system. I write all my recipes using adjustable charts; they're a little unorthodox, but they're easy once you get the hang of them. Each subsection is also filled with science, history, and linguistic nerdiness.
If you're going to start making stuff, you'll probably need some ingredients. Some can be grown! Others will definitely require a trip to the store or internet.
+ + +
Latest in Apothecary
+ + +