BEFORE THE 1970'S THE JUDICIARY ADOPTED A 'HANDS OFF' POLICY REGARDING THE OPERATION OF CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IT WAS ASSUMED THAT PRISONERS LOST SOME OF THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY WERE INCARCERATED AND ACCESS TO THE PRESS WAS ONE OF THESE RIGHTS. HOWEVER, IT WAS GENERALLY HELD THAT MEDIA ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRISON WAS PROPERLY DETERMINED BY CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND OTHER OFFICIALS. THESE OFFICIALS HAVE GENERALLY HELD THAT INTERVIEWS WITH SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL INMATES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS BEGAN TO BE CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS IN 1967. A SERIES OF CASES BETWEEN 1969 AND 1971 WHICH RESULTED IN CONFLICTING VIEWS ON THE PART OF VARIOUS STATE COURTS ARE EXAMINED. THE ISSUE OF INMATE ACCESS TO THE MEDIA WAS THE FOCUS OF MANY OF THE PRISON RIOTS OF THE EARLY 1970'S. THE ISSUE FINALLY REACHED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN PELL V PROCUNIER, WHICH IS ANALYZED IN DETAIL. IN THIS CASE THE COURT FOUND THAT PRISONERS COULD COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESS THROUGH UNCENSORED MAIL AND INDIRECTLY THROUGH FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND CLERGYMEN, AND HELD THAT PRISON REGULATIONS FORBIDDING INTERVIEWS WITH THE PRESS WERE NOT UNREASONABLE. HOWEVER, FOUR JUSTICES STRONGLY DISSENTED. A CRITIQUE OF THE DECISION ASSERTS THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ADDRESSED. IN SAXBE V. THE WASHINGTON POST, INC., THE INABILITY OF THE MEDIA TO INFORM THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY WAS ADDRESSED, BUT THE SUPREME COURT AGAIN DIVIDED STRONGLY. THE CASE OF KQUED, INC., FILED BY A TELEVISION STATION DENIED ACCESS TO A JAIL, RESULTED IN ANOTHER SPLIT DECISION. THE STATE OF THE LAW IS UNSETTLED, BUT A LIBERALIZING TREND IS SEEN. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)