No. 124. FUHRMAN, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP.; No. 172. LAMP, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP.; No. 201. COOK, ADMINISTRATRIX v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP.; and No. 210. RADTKE, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 407 F. 2d 1143. No. 389. UNITED STATES V. URBAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 187 Ct. Cl. 15, 408 F. 2d 382. No. 401. UNITED STATES v. WOODCREST CONSTRUCTION Co., INC., ET AL. Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 187 Ct. Cl. 249, 408 F. 2d 406. No. 498. UNITED STATES v. WALLENIUS BREMEN, G. M. B. H. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 409 F. 2d 994. No. 1467. WALL STREET TRANSCRIPT CORP. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F. 2d 1371. No. 1468. VAVOLIZZA v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 1472. NATIONWIDE THEATRES INVESTMENT Co. ET AL. V. THOMPSON ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 1485. DEMAIO v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F. 2d 543. No. 1487. ARMSTRONG, JONES & CO. ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 421 F. 2d 359. No. 1488. MARCELLO v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 423 F. 2d 993. No. 1496. DISTRICT 30, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F.2d 115. No. 1497. SCHMIDT ET AL. v. ARCHER IRON WORKS, INC. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 44 Ill. 2d 401, 256 N. E. 2d 6. No. 1504. COWDEN MANUFACTURING Co. v. KORATRON Co., INC., ET AL. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F. 2d 371. No. 1505. OCEAN FREIGHTING & BROKERAGE CORP. V. STATES MARINE LINES, INC. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 421 F. 2d 851. No. 1509. ESKOW v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 422 F. 2d 1060. No. 1514. SABINO v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied. No. 1515. CITY OF WARREN ET AL. v. METRO HOMES, INC., ET AL. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 19 Mich. App. 664, 173 N. W. 2d 230. No. 1520. HORTON V. NORTH CAROLINA. Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 N. C. 651, 170 S. E. 2d 466. No. 1524. WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied. No. 1525. HENRY I. SIEGEL CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 417 F. 2d 1206. No. 1529. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN ET AL. V. HANSEN ET AL. Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 24 Utah 2d 30, 465 P. 2d 351. No. 1535. ERICKSON ET AL., DBA "PHOENIX TAPES" v. CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2 Cal. App. 3d 526, 82 Cal. Rptr. 798. No. 1539. ZMUDA V. UNITED STATES. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 423 F. 2d 757. No. 1576. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA v. DEAN COAL Co. ET AL. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 421 F. 2d 1380. No. 173. AMERICAN BOILER MANUFACTURERS ASSN. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 404 F. 2d 547. No. 621. WISEMAN ET AL. v. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 356 Mass. 251, 249 N. E. 2d 610. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, dissenting. Petitioners seek review in this Court of a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court enjoining the commercial distribution to general audiences of the film "Titticut Follies." Petitioners' film is a "documentary" of life in Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane. Its stark portrayal of patient-routine and treatment of the inmates is at once a scathing indictment of the inhumane conditions that prevailed at the time of the film and an undeniable infringement of the 960 HARLAN, J., dissenting privacy of the inmates filmed, who are shown nude and engaged in acts that would unquestionably embarrass an individual of normal sensitivity. The Massachusetts court concluded that the State had standing on behalf of the inmates to bring an injunctive action to protect their right of privacy and that the balance to be struck between the First and Fourteenth Amendments' "commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964), and the individual's interest in privacy and dignity was such that the dissemination of the film should be restricted to audiences of professionals, e. g., lawyers and psychiatrists, with a special interest. 356 Mass. 251, 249 N. E. 2d 610 (1969). The balance between these two interests, that of the individual's privacy and the public's right to know about conditions in public institutions, is not one that is easily struck, particularly in a case like that before us where the importance of the issue is matched by the extent of the invasion of privacy. As one Federal District Court stated in a case seeking to enjoin distribution of this same movie in New York: "The conditions in public institutions . . . are matters which are of great interest to the public generally. Such public interest is both legitimate and healthy. Quite aside from the fact that substantial sums of taxpayers' money are spent annually on such institutions, there is the necessity for keeping the public informed as a means of developing responsible suggestions for improvement and of avoiding abuse of inmates who for the most part are unable intelligently to voice any effective suggestions or protests." Cullen v. Grove Press, Inc., 276 HARLAN, J., dissenting 398 U.S. F. Supp. 727, 728-729 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1967, This principle underlay this Court's decision in Barr v. "The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. This calls for the widest possible understanding of the quality of government service rendered by all elective or appointed public officials or employees." A further consideration is the fact that these inmates are not only the wards of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but are also the charges of society as a whole. It is important that conditions in public institutions should not be cloaked in secrecy, lest citizens may disclaim responsibility for the treatment that their representative government affords those in its care. At the same time it must be recognized that the individual's concern with privacy is the key to the dignity which is the promise of civilized society. See my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 522. The subtlety and importance of the question presented by this case was, by no means, lost on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: "That injunctive relief may be granted against showing the film to the general public on a commercial basis does not mean that all showings of the film must be prevented. As already indicated. . . the film gives a striking picture of life at Bridgewater and of the problems affecting treatment at that or any similar institution. It is a film which would be instructive to legislators, judges, lawyers, sociologists, social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, students in these or related fields, and organizations dealing with the social problems of |