IN THE COMPANION CASES OF PELL V. PROCUNIER AND SASBE V WASHINGTON POST CO., THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS BY PRISONERS AND THE PRESS, AND UPHELD CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL PRISON REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBIT FACE-TO FACE INTERVIEWS BETWEEN PRISONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE NEWS MEDIA. THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AND ABSOLUTE IN NATURE: PERSONAL INTERVIEWS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE NEWS MEDIA AND PRISONERS DESIGNATED BY NAME WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT ANY PENAL INSTITUTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE COURT'S REASONING AS IT RELATES TO THE CLAIMS RAISED BY THE PRISONERS AND THE PRESS. IN REGARD TO THE PRISONERS' FREEDOM OF SPEECH ARGUMENT, THE ARTICLE COMPARES THE COURT'S APPROACH IN PELL TO CONVENTIONAL FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS AND TO THE APPROACH OF THE MODERN TREND OF PRISONER RIGHTS CASES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)