text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Respondent inmates brought a class action challenging two regulations promulgated by the Missouri Division of Corrections. The first permits correspondence between immediate family members who are inmates at different institutions within the Division's jurisdiction, and between inmates "concerning legal matters," but allows other inmate correspondence only if each inmate's classification/treatment team deems it in the best interests of the parties. The second regulation permits an inmate to marry only with the prison superintendent's permission, which can be given only when there are "compelling reasons" to do so. Testimony indicated that generally only a pregnancy or the birth of an illegitimate child would be considered "compelling." The Federal District Court found both regulations unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, POWELL, and SCALIA, JJ., joined, and in Part III-B of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 100.
Henry T. Herschel, Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were William L. Webster, Attorney General, and Michael L. Boicourt.
Floyd R. Finch, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Trott, Deputy Solicitor General Cohen, and Roger Clegg; and for the State of Arkansas et al. by Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Brent R. Appel, Deputy Attorney General, John Steven Clark, Attorney General of Arkansas, John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, Nicholas Spaeth, Attorney General of North Dakota, T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina, Mark V. Meierhenry, Attorney General of South Dakota, Gerald L. Baliles, Attorney General of Virginia, and Robert M. Spire, Attorney General of Nebraska.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Correctional Association of New York by John H. Hall and Steven Klugman; for Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Inc., et al. by Robert Selcov; and for Guadalupe Guajardo, Jr., et al. by Harry M. Reasoner and Ann Lents.
Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas, Mary F. Keller, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and F. Scott McCown and Michael F. Lynch, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Texas as amicus curiae. [482 U.S. 78, 81]
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of regulations promulgated by the Missouri Division of Corrections relating to inmate marriages and inmate-to-inmate correspondence. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying a strict scrutiny analysis, concluded that the regulations violate respondents' constitutional rights. We hold that a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate in determining the constitutionality of the prison rules. Applying that standard, we uphold the validity of the correspondence regulation, but we conclude that the marriage restriction cannot be sustained.
Respondents brought this class action for injunctive relief and damages in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The regulations challenged in the complaint were in effect at all prisons within the jurisdiction of the Missouri Division of Corrections. This litigation focused, however, on practices at the Renz Correctional Institution (Renz), located in Cedar City, Missouri. The Renz prison population includes both male and female prisoners of varying security levels. Most of the female prisoners at Renz are classified as medium or maximum security inmates, while most of the male prisoners are classified as minimum security offenders. Renz is used on occasion to provide protective custody for inmates from other prisons in the Missouri system. The facility originally was built as a minimum security prison farm, and it still has a minimum security perimeter without guard towers or walls.
Two regulations are at issue here. The first of the challenged regulations relates to correspondence between inmates at different institutions. It permits such correspondence "with immediate family members who are inmates in other correctional institutions," and it permits correspondence between inmates "concerning legal matters." Other correspondence between inmates, however, is permitted only [482 U.S. 78, 82] if "the classification/treatment team of each inmate deems it in the best interest of the parties involved." App. 34. Trial testimony indicated that as a matter of practice, the determination whether to permit inmates to correspond was based on team members' familiarity with the progress reports, conduct violations, and psychological reports in the inmates' files rather than on individual review of each piece of mail. See 777 F.2d 1307, 1308 (CA8 1985). At Renz, the District Court found that the rule "as practiced is that inmates may not write non-family inmates." 586 F. Supp. 589, 591 (WD Mo. 1984).
The challenged marriage regulation, which was promulgated while this litigation was pending, permits an inmate to marry only with the permission of the superintendent of the prison, and provides that such approval should be given only "when there are compelling reasons to do so." App. 47. The term "compelling" is not defined, but prison officials testified at trial that generally only a pregnancy or the birth of an illegitimate child would be considered a compelling reason. See 586 F. Supp., at 592. Prior to the promulgation of this rule, the applicable regulation did not obligate Missouri Division of Corrections officials to assist an inmate who wanted to get married, but it also did not specifically authorize the superintendent of an institution to prohibit inmates from getting married. Ibid.
The District Court certified respondents as a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class certified by the District Court includes "persons who either are or may be confined to the Renz Correctional Center and who desire to correspond with inmates at other Missouri correctional facilities." It also encompasses a broader group of persons "who desire to . . . marry inmates of Missouri correctional institutions and whose rights of . . . marriage have been or will be violated by employees of the Missouri Division of Corrections." See App. 21-22. [482 U.S. 78, 83]
The District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order finding both the correspondence and marriage regulations unconstitutional. The court, relying on Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 -414 (1974), applied a strict scrutiny standard. It held the marriage regulation to be an unconstitutional infringement upon the fundamental right to marry because it was far more restrictive than was either reasonable or essential for the protection of the State's interests in security and rehabilitation. 586 F. Supp., at 594. The correspondence regulation also was unnecessarily broad, the court concluded, because prison officials could effectively cope with the security problems raised by inmate-to-inmate correspondence through less restrictive means, such as scanning the mail of potentially troublesome inmate. Id., at 596. The District Court also held that the correspondence regulation had been applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 777 F.2d 1307 (1985). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court properly used strict scrutiny in evaluating the constitutionality of the Missouri correspondence and marriage regulations. Under Procunier v. Martinez, supra, the correspondence regulation could be justified "only if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression, and the limitation is no greater than necessary or essential to protect that interest." 777 F.2d, at 1310. The correspondence regulation did not satisfy this standard because it was not the least restrictive means of achieving the security goals of the regulation. In the Court of Appeals' view, prison officials could meet the problem of inmate conspiracies by exercising their authority to open and read all prisoner mail. Id., at 1315-1316. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the marriage rule was not the least restrictive means of achieving the asserted goals of rehabilitation and security. The goal of rehabilitation could be met through alternatives such [482 U.S. 78, 84] as counseling, and violent "love triangles" were as likely to occur without a formal marriage ceremony as with one. Ibid. Absent evidence that the relationship was or would become abusive, the connection between an inmate's marriage and the subsequent commission of a crime was simply too tenuous to justify denial of this constitutional right. Id., at 1315.
We granted certiorari, 476 U.S. 1139 (1986).
We begin, as did the courts below, with our decision in Procunier v. Martinez, supra, which described the principles that necessarily frame our analysis of prisoners' constitutional claims. The first of these principles is that federal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison inmates. Id., at 405. Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution. Hence, for example, prisoners retain the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969); they are protected against invidious racial discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968); and they enjoy the protections of due process, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Because prisoners retain these rights, "[w]hen a prison regulation or practice offends a fundamental constitutional guarantee, federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S., at 405 -406.
A second principle identified in Martinez, however, is the recognition that "courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform." Id., at 405. As the Martinez Court acknowledged, "the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree." Id., at 404-405. Running a prison [482 U.S. 78, 85] is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have, as we indicated in Martinez, additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities. See id., at 405.
Our task, then, as we stated in Martinez, is to formulate a standard of review for prisoners' constitutional claims that is responsive both to the "policy of judicial restraint regarding prisoner complaints and [to] the need to protect constitutional rights." Id., at 406. As the Court of Appeals acknowledged, Martinez did not itself resolve the question that it framed. Martinez involved mail censorship regulations proscribing statements that "unduly complain," "magnify grievances," or express "inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views." Id., at 415. In that case, the Court determined that the proper standard of review for prison restrictions on correspondence between prisoners and members of the general public could be decided without resolving the "broad questions of `prisoners' rights.'" Id., at 408. The Martinez Court based its ruling striking down the content-based regulation on the First Amendment rights of those who are not prisoners, stating that "[w]hatever the status of a prisoner's claim to uncensored correspondence with an outsider, it is plain that the latter's interest is grounded in the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech." Id., at 408. Our holding therefore turned on the fact that the challenged regulation caused a "consequential restriction on the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of those who are not prisoners." Id., at 409 (emphasis added). We expressly reserved the question of the proper standard of [482 U.S. 78, 86] review to apply in cases "involving questions of `prisoners' rights.'" Ibid.
In four cases following Martinez, this Court has addressed such "questions of `prisoners' rights.'" The first of these, Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974), decided the same Term as Martinez, involved a constitutional challenge to a prison regulation prohibiting face-to-face media interviews with individual inmates. The Court rejected the inmates' First Amendment challenge to the ban on media interviews, noting that judgments regarding prison security "are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters." 417 U.S., at 827 .
The next case to consider a claim of prisoners' rights was Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977). There the Court considered prison regulations that prohibited meetings of a "prisoners' labor union," inmate solicitation of other inmates to join the union, and bulk mailings concerning the union from outside sources. Noting that the lower court in Jones had "got[ten] off on the wrong foot . . . by not giving appropriate deference to the decisions of prison administrators and appropriate recognition to the peculiar and restrictive circumstances of penal confinement," id., at 125, the Court determined that the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners were "barely implicated" by the prohibition on bulk mailings, see id., at 130, and that the regulation was "reasonable" under the circumstances. The prisoners' constitutional challenge to the union meeting and solicitation restrictions was also rejected, because "[t]he ban on inmate solicitation and group meetings . . . was rationally related to the reasonable, indeed to the central, objectives of prison administration." Id., at 129. [482 U.S. 78, 87]
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), concerned a First Amendment challenge to a Bureau of Prisons rule restricting inmates' receipt of hardback books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores. The rule was upheld as a "rational response" to a clear security problem. Id., at 550. Because there was "no evidence" that officials had exaggerated their response to the security problem, the Court held that "the considered judgment of these experts must control in the absence of prohibitions far more sweeping than those involved here." Id., at 551. And in Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984), a ban on contact visits was upheld on the ground that "responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility," and the regulation was "reasonably related" to these security concerns. Id., at 589, 586.
In none of these four "prisoners' rights" cases did the Court apply a standard of heightened scrutiny, but instead inquired whether a prison regulation that burdens fundamental rights is "reasonably related" to legitimate penological objectives, or whether it represents an "exaggerated response" to those concerns. The Court of Appeals in this case nevertheless concluded that Martinez provided the closest analogy for determining the appropriate standard of review for resolving respondents' constitutional complaints. The Court of Appeals distinguished this Court's decisions in Pell, Jones, Bell, and Block as variously involving "time, place, or manner" regulations, or regulations that restrict "presumptively dangerous" inmate activities. See 777 F.2d, at 1310-1312. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Martinez had expressly reserved the question of the appropriate standard of review based on inmates' constitutional claims, but it nonetheless believed that the Martinez standard was the proper one to apply to respondents' constitutional claims.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals that the reasoning in our cases subsequent to Martinez can be so narrowly [482 U.S. 78, 88] cabined. In Pell, for example, it was found "relevant" to the reasonableness of a restriction on face-to-face visits between prisoners and news reporters that prisoners had other means of communicating with members of the general public. See 417 U.S., at 823 -824. These alternative means of communication did not, however, make the prison regulation a "time, place, or manner" restriction in any ordinary sense of the term. As Pell acknowledged, the alternative methods of personal communication still available to prisoners would have been "unimpressive" if offered to justify a restriction on personal communication among members of the general public. Id., at 825. Nevertheless, they were relevant in determining the scope of the burden placed by the regulation on inmates' First Amendment rights. Pell thus simply teaches that it is appropriate to consider the extent of this burden when "we [are] called upon to balance First Amendment rights against [legitimate] governmental interests." Id., at 824.
Nor, in our view, can the reasonableness standard adopted in Jones and Bell be construed as applying only to "presumptively dangerous" inmate activities. To begin with, the Court of Appeals did not indicate how it would identify such "presumptively dangerous" conduct, other than to conclude that the group meetings in Jones, and the receipt of hardback books in Bell, both fall into that category. See 777 F.2d, at 1311-1312. The Court of Appeals found that correspondence between inmates did not come within this grouping because the court did "not think a letter presents the same sort of `obvious security problem' as does a hardback book." Id., at 1312. It is not readily apparent, however, why hardback books, which can be scanned for contraband by electronic devices and fluoroscopes, see Bell v. Wolfish, supra, at 574 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), are qualitatively different in this respect from inmate correspondence, which can be written in codes not readily subject to detection; or why coordinated inmate activity within the same prison is categorically different [482 U.S. 78, 89] from inmate activity coordinated by mail among different prison institutions. The determination that an activity is "presumptively dangerous" appears simply to be a conclusion about the reasonableness of the prison restriction in light of the articulated security concerns. It therefore provides a tenuous basis for creating a hierarchy of standards of review.
If Pell, Jones, and Bell have not already resolved the question posed in Martinez, we resolve it now: when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. In our view, such a standard is necessary if "prison administrators . . ., and not the courts, [are] to make the difficult judgments concerning institutional operations." Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S., at 128 . Subjecting the day-to-day judgments of prison officials to an inflexible strict scrutiny analysis would seriously hamper their ability to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration. The rule would also distort the decisionmaking process, for every administrative judgment would be subject to the possibility that some court somewhere would conclude that it had a less restrictive way of solving the problem at hand. Courts inevitably would become the primary arbiters of what constitutes the best solution to every administrative problem, thereby "unnecessarily perpetuat[ing] the involvement of the federal courts in affairs of prison administration." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S., at 407 .
As our opinions in Pell, Bell, and Jones show, several factors are relevant in determining the reasonableness of the regulation at issue. First, there must be a "valid, rational connection" between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. Block v. Rutherford, supra, at 586. Thus, a regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy [482 U.S. 78, 90] arbitrary or irrational. Moreover, the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one. We have found it important to inquire whether prison regulations restricting inmates' First Amendment rights operated in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S., at 828 ; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S., at 551 .
A second factor relevant in determining the reasonableness of a prison restriction, as Pell shows, is whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates. Where "other avenues" remain available for the exercise of the asserted right, see Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, supra, at 131, courts should be particularly conscious of the "measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials . . . in gauging the validity of the regulation." Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 827.
A third consideration is the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally. In the necessarily closed environment of the correctional institution, few changes will have no ramifications on the liberty of others or on the use of the prison's limited resources for preserving institutional order. When accommodation of an asserted right will have a significant "ripple effect" on fellow inmates or on prison staff, courts should be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of corrections officials. Cf. Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, supra, at 132-133.
Finally, the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison regulation. See Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S., at 587 . By the same token, the existence of obvious, easy alternatives may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable, but is an "exaggerated response" to prison concerns. This is not a "least restrictive alternative" test: prison officials do not have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating [482 U.S. 78, 91] the claimant's constitutional complaint. See ibid. But if an inmate claimant can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner's rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interest, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard.
Applying our analysis to the Missouri rule barring inmate-to-inmate correspondence, we conclude that the record clearly demonstrates that the regulation was reasonably related to legitimate security interests. We find that the marriage restriction, however, does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard, but rather constitutes an exaggerated response to petitioners' rehabilitation and security concerns.
According to the testimony at trial, the Missouri correspondence provision was promulgated primarily for security reasons. Prison officials testified that mail between institutions can be used to communicate escape plans and to arrange assaults and other violent acts. 2 Tr. 76; 4 id., at 225-228. Witnesses stated that the Missouri Division of Corrections had a growing problem with prison gangs, and that restricting communications among gang members, both by transferring gang members to different institutions and by restricting their correspondence, was an important element in combating this problem. 2 id., at 75-77; 3 id., at 266-267; 4 id., at 226. Officials also testified that the use of Renz as a facility to provide protective custody for certain inmates could be compromised by permitting correspondence between inmates at Renz and inmates at other correctional institutions. 3 id., at 264-265.
The prohibition on correspondence between institutions is logically connected to these legitimate security concerns. Undoubtedly, communication with other felons is a potential spur to criminal behavior: this sort of contact frequently is [482 U.S. 78, 92] prohibited even after an inmate has been released on parole. See, e. g., 28 CFR 2.40(a)(10) (1986) (federal parole conditioned on nonassociation with known criminals, unless permission is granted by the parole officer). In Missouri prisons, the danger of such coordinated criminal activity is exacerbated by the presence of prison gangs. The Missouri policy of separating and isolating gang members - a strategy that has been frequently used to control gang activity, see G. Camp & C. Camp, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature and Impact on Prisons 64-65 (1985) - logically is furthered by the restriction on prisoner-to-prisoner correspondence. Moreover, the correspondence regulation does not deprive prisoners of all means of expression. Rather, it bars communication only with a limited class of other people with whom prison officials have particular cause to be concerned - inmates at other institutions within the Missouri prison system.
We also think that the Court of Appeals' analysis overlooks the impact of respondents' asserted right on other inmates and prison personnel. Prison officials have stated that in their expert opinion, correspondence between prison institutions facilitates the development of informal organizations that threaten the core functions of prison administration, maintaining safety and internal security. As a result, the correspondence rights asserted by respondents, like the organizational activities at issue in Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977), can be exercised only at the cost of significantly less liberty and safety for everyone else, guards and other prisoners alike. Indeed, the potential "ripple effect" is even broader here than in Jones, because exercise of the right affects the inmates and staff of more than one institution. Where exercise of a right requires this kind of tradeoff, we think that the choice made by corrections officials - which is, after all, a judgment "peculiarly within [their] province and professional expertise," Pell v. Procunier, [482 U.S. 78, 93] 417 U.S., at 827 - should not be lightly set aside by the courts.
Finally, there are no obvious, easy alternatives to the policy adopted by petitioners. Other well-run prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have concluded that substantially similar restrictions on inmate correspondence were necessary to protect institutional order and security. See, e. g., 28 CFR 540.17 (1986). As petitioners have shown, the only alternative proffered by the claimant prisoners, the monitoring of inmate correspondence, clearly would impose more than a de minimis cost on the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals. Prison officials testified that it would be impossible to read every piece of inmate-to-inmate correspondence, 3 Tr. 159, 4 id., at 42-43, and consequently there would be an appreciable risk of missing dangerous messages. In any event, prisoners could easily write in jargon or codes to prevent detection of their real messages. See Camp & Camp, supra, at 130 (noting "frequent" use of coded correspondence by gang members in federal prison); see also Brief for State of Texas as Amicus Curiae 7-9. The risk of missing dangerous communications, taken together with the sheer burden on staff resources required to conduct item-by-item censorship, see 3 Tr. 176, supports the judgment of prison officials that this alternative is not an adequate alternative to restricting correspondence.
The prohibition on correspondence is reasonably related to valid corrections goals. The rule is content neutral, it logically advances the goals of institutional security and safety identified by Missouri prison officials, and it is not an exaggerated response to those objectives. On that basis, we conclude that the regulation does not unconstitutionally abridge the First Amendment rights of prison inmates. * [482 U.S. 78, 94]
In support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally [482 U.S. 78, 95] protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." See Brief for Petitioners 38, n. 6. Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. They urge that the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate security and rehabilitation concerns.
We disagree with petitioners that Zablocki does not apply to prison inmates. It is settled that a prison inmate "retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 822. The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements [482 U.S. 78, 96] are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.
Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context. Our decision in Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 (1974), summarily affirming Johnson v. Rockefeller, 365 F. Supp. 377 (SDNY 1973), is not to the contrary. That case involved a prohibition on marriage only for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment; and, importantly, denial of the right was part of the punishment for crime. See id., at 381-382 (Lasker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (asserted governmental interest of punishing crime sufficiently important to justify deprivation of right); see generally Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) ("Because a summary affirmance is an affirmance of the judgment only, the rationale of the affirmance may not be gleaned solely from the opinion below").
The Missouri marriage regulation prohibits inmates from marrying unless the prison superintendent has approved the marriage after finding that there are compelling reasons for doing so. As noted previously, generally only pregnancy or birth of a child is considered a "compelling reason" to approve [482 U.S. 78, 97] a marriage. In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. See Brief for Petitioners 40. Although not urged by respondents, this implication of the interests of nonprisoners may support application of the Martinez standard, because the regulation may entail a "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of those who are not prisoners." See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S., at 409 . We need not reach this question, however, because even under the reasonable relationship test, the marriage regulation does not withstand scrutiny.
Petitioners have identified both security and rehabilitation concerns in support of the marriage prohibition. The security concern emphasized by petitioners is that "love triangles" might lead to violent confrontations between inmates. See Brief for Petitioners 13, 36, 39. With respect to rehabilitation, prison officials testified that female prisoners often were subject to abuse at home or were overly dependent on male figures, and that this dependence or abuse was connected to the crimes they had committed. 3 Tr. 154-155. The superintendent at Renz, petitioner William Turner, testified that in his view, these women prisoners needed to concentrate on developing skills of self-reliance, 1 id., at 80-81, and that the prohibition on marriage furthered this rehabilitative goal. Petitioners emphasize that the prohibition on marriage should be understood in light of Superintendent Turner's experience with several ill-advised marriage requests from female inmates. Brief for Petitioners 32-34.
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent. The Missouri regulation, however, represents an [482 U.S. 78, 98] exaggerated response to such security objectives. There are obvious, easy alternatives to the Missouri regulation that accommodate the right to marry while imposing a de minimis burden on the pursuit of security objectives. See, e. g., 28 CFR 551.10 (1986) (marriage by inmates in federal prison generally permitted, but not if warden finds that it presents a threat to security or order of institution, or to public safety). We are aware of no place in the record where prison officials testified that such ready alternatives would not fully satisfy their security concerns. Moreover, with respect to the security concern emphasized in petitioners' brief - the creation of "love triangles" - petitioners have pointed to nothing in the record suggesting that the marriage regulation was viewed as preventing such entanglements. Common sense likewise suggests that there is no logical connection between the marriage restriction and the formation of love triangles: surely in prisons housing both male and female prisoners, inmate rivalries are as likely to develop without a formal marriage ceremony as with one. Finally, this is not an instance where the "ripple effect" on the security of fellow inmates and prison staff justifies a broad restriction on inmates' rights - indeed, where the inmate wishes to marry a civilian, the decision to marry (apart from the logistics of the wedding ceremony) is a completely private one.
Nor, on this record, is the marriage restriction reasonably related to the articulated rehabilitation goal. First, in requiring refusal of permission absent a finding of a compelling reason to allow the marriage, the rule sweeps much more broadly than can be explained by petitioners' penological objectives. Missouri prison officials testified that generally they had experienced no problem with the marriage of male inmates, see, e. g., 2 Tr. 21-22, and the District Court found that such marriages had routinely been allowed as a matter of practice at Missouri correctional institutions prior to adoption of the rule, 586 F. Supp., at 592. The proffered justification thus does not explain the adoption of a rule banning [482 U.S. 78, 99] marriages by these inmates. Nor does it account for the prohibition on inmate marriages to civilians. Missouri prison officials testified that generally they had no objection to inmate-civilian marriages, see, e. g., 4 Tr. 240-241, and Superintendent Turner testified that he usually did not object to the marriage of either male or female prisoners to civilians, 2 id., at 141-142. The rehabilitation concern appears from the record to have been centered almost exclusively on female inmates marrying other inmates or exfelons; it does not account for the ban on inmate-civilian marriages.
Moreover, although not necessary to the disposition of this case, we note that on this record the rehabilitative objective asserted to support the regulation itself is suspect. Of the several female inmates whose marriage requests were discussed by prison officials at trial, only one was refused on the basis of fostering excessive dependency. The District Court found that the Missouri prison system operated on the basis of excessive paternalism in that the proposed marriages of all female inmates were scrutinized carefully even before adoption of the current regulation - only one was approved at Renz in the period from 1979-1983 - whereas the marriages of male inmates during the same period were routinely approved. That kind of lopsided rehabilitation concern cannot provide a justification for the broad Missouri marriage rule.
It is undisputed that Missouri prison officials may regulate the time and circumstances under which the marriage ceremony itself takes place. See Brief for Respondents 5. On this record, however, the almost complete ban on the decision to marry is not reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. We conclude, therefore, that the Missouri marriage regulation is facially invalid.
We uphold the facial validity of the correspondence regulation, but we conclude that the marriage rule is constitutionally [482 U.S. 78, 100] infirm. We read petitioners' additional challenge to the District Court's findings of fact to be a claim that the District Court erred in holding that the correspondence regulation had been applied by prison officials in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because the Court of Appeals did not address this question, we remand the issue to the Court of Appeals for its consideration.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals striking down the Missouri marriage regulation is affirmed; its judgment invalidating the correspondence rule is reversed; and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote * ] Suggesting that there is little difference between the "unnecessarily sweeping" standard applied by the District Court in reaching its judgment and the reasonableness standard described in Part II, see post, at 105, JUSTICE STEVENS complains that we have "ignore[d] the findings of fact that [482 U.S. 78, 94] were made by the District Court," post, at 102, n. 2, and have improperly "encroach[ed] into the factfinding domain of the District Court." Post, at 101.
The District Court's inquiry as to whether the regulations were "needlessly broad" is not just semantically different from the standard we have articulated in Part II: it is the least restrictive alternative test of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). As Martinez states, in a passage quoted by the District Court:
JUSTICE STEVENS' charge of appellate factfinding likewise suffers from the flawed premise that Part III-A answers the question JUSTICE STEVENS would pose, namely, whether the correspondence regulation satisfies strict scrutiny. Thus, our conclusion that there is a logical connection between security concerns identified by petitioners and a ban on inmate-to-inmate correspondence, see supra, at 91-92, becomes, in JUSTICE STEVENS' hands, a searching examination of the record to determine whether there was sufficient proof that inmate correspondence had actually led to an escape plot, uprising, or gang violence at Renz. See post, at 106-109. Likewise, our conclusion that monitoring inmate correspondence "clearly would impose more than a de minimis cost on the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals," supra, at 93, is described as a factual "finding" that it [482 U.S. 78, 95] would be "an insurmountable task" to read all correspondence sent to or received by the inmates at Renz. Post, at 110, 112. Nowhere, of course, do we make such a "finding," nor is it necessary to do so unless one is applying a least restrictive means test.
Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS complains that Renz' ban on inmate correspondence cannot be reasonably related to legitimate corrections goals because it is more restrictive than the rule at other Missouri institutions. As our previous decisions make clear, however, the Constitution "does not mandate a `lowest common denominator' security standard, whereby a practice permitted at one penal institution must be permitted at all institutions." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 554 (1979). Renz raises different security concerns from other Missouri institutions, both because it houses medium and maximum security prisoners in a facility without walls or guard towers, and because it is used to house inmates in protective custody. Moreover, the Renz rule is consistent with the practice of other well-run institutions, including institutions in the federal system. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22-24.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
How a court describes its standard of review when a prison regulation infringes fundamental constitutional rights often has far less consequence for the inmates than the actual showing that the court demands of the State in order to uphold the regulation. This case provides a prime example.
There would not appear to be much difference between the question whether a prison regulation that burdens fundamental rights in the quest for security is "needlessly broad" - the standard applied by the District Court and the Court of Appeals - and this Court's requirement that the regulation must be "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," ante, at 89, and may not represent "an `exaggerated response' to those concerns." Ante, at 87. But if the standard can be satisfied by nothing more than a "logical connection" between the regulation and any legitimate penological concern perceived by a cautious warden, see ante, at 94, n. (emphasis in original), it is virtually meaningless. Application of the standard would seem to permit disregard for inmates' constitutional rights whenever the imagination of the [482 U.S. 78, 101] warden produces a plausible security concern and a deferential trial court is able to discern a logical connection between that concern and the challenged regulation. Indeed, there is a logical connection between prison discipline and the use of bullwhips on prisoners; and security is logically furthered by a total ban on inmate communication, not only with other inmates but also with outsiders who conceivably might be interested in arranging an attack within the prison or an escape from it. Thus, I dissent from Part II of the Court's opinion. 1
I am able to join Part III-B because the Court's invalidation of the marriage regulation does not rely on a rejection of a standard of review more stringent than the one announced in Part II. See ante, at 97. The Court in Part III-B concludes after careful examination that, even applying a "reasonableness" standard, the marriage regulation must fail because the justifications asserted on its behalf lack record support. Part III-A, however, is not only based on an application of the Court's newly minted standard, see ante, at 89, but also represents the product of a plainly improper appellate encroachment into the factfinding domain of the District Court. See Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709, 714 (1986). Indeed, a fundamental difference between the Court of Appeals and this Court in this case - and the principal point of this dissent - rests in the respective ways the two courts have examined and made use of the trial record. In my opinion the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court's findings of fact adequately supported its judgment sustaining the inmates' challenge to the mail [482 U.S. 78, 102] regulation as it has been administered at the Renz Correctional Center in Cedar City, Missouri. In contrast, this Court sifts the trial testimony on its own 2 in order to uphold a general prohibition against correspondence between unrelated inmates.
This is not a case in which it is particularly helpful to begin by determining the "proper" standard of review, as if the result of that preliminary activity would somehow lighten the Court's duty to decide this case. The precise issue before us is evident from respondents' complaint, which makes clear that they were not launching an exclusively facial attack against the correspondence regulation. Respondents instead leveled their primary challenge against the application of this regulation to mail addressed to or sent by inmates at Renz:
The ostensible breadth of the Court of Appeals' opinion 4 furnishes no license for this Court to reverse with another unnecessarily broad holding. Moreover, even under the Court's newly minted standard, the findings of the District Court that were upheld by the Court of Appeals clearly dictate affirmance of the judgment below.
Without explicitly disagreeing with any of the District Court's findings of fact, this Court rejects the trial judge's conclusion that the total ban on correspondence between inmates at Renz and unrelated inmates in other correctional facilities was "unnecessarily sweeping" or, to use the language the Court seems to prefer, was an "exaggerated response" to the security problems predicted by petitioner's expert witnesses. Instead, the Court bases its holding upon its own highly selective use of factual evidence.
The reasons the Court advances in support of its conclusion include: (1) speculation about possible "gang problems," escapes, and secret codes, ante, at 91-93; (2) the fact that the correspondence regulation "does not deprive prisoners of all means of expression," ante, at 92; and (3) testimony indicating [482 U.S. 78, 106] "that it would be impossible to read every piece of inmate-to-inmate correspondence," ante, at 93. None of these reasons has a sufficient basis in the record to support the Court's holding on the mail regulation.
Speculation about the possible adverse consequences of allowing inmates in different institutions to correspond with one another is found in the testimony of three witnesses: William Turner, the Superintendent of Renz Correctional Center; Sally Halford, the Director of the Kansas Correctional Institution at Lansing; and David Blackwell, the former Director of the Division of Adult Institutions of the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Superintendent Turner was unable to offer proof that prohibiting inmate-to-inmate correspondence prevented the formation or dissemination of escape plots. He merely asserted that the mail regulation assisted him in his duties to maintain security at Renz "[f]rom the standpoint that we don't have escapes, we don't have the problems that are experienced in other institutions." 2 Tr. 75. Nor did the Superintendent's testimony establish that permitting such correspondence would create a security risk; he could only surmise that the mail policy would inhibit communications between institutions in the early stages of an uprising. Id., at 76. The Superintendent's testimony is entirely consistent with the District Court's conclusion that the correspondence regulation was an exaggerated response to the potential gang problem at Renz. 5 [482 U.S. 78, 107]
Neither of the outside witnesses had any special knowledge of conditions at Renz. Ms. Halford had reviewed the prison's rules and regulations relevant to this case, had discussed the case with Superintendent Turner, and had visited Renz for "a couple of hours." 3 id., at 146. Mr. Blackwell was charged with the overall management of Missouri's adult correctional facilities and did not make daily decisions concerning the inmate correspondence permitted at Renz. Id., at 259-260. He was "not sure" if he was specifically familiar with the policy at Renz that an inmate is allowed to correspond with inmates of other institutions only if they are members of the inmate's immediate family. 4 id., at 44.
Neither of them, and indeed, no other witness, even mentioned the possibility of the use of secret codes by inmates. The Kansas witness testified that Kansas followed a policy of "open correspondence. . . . An inmate can write to whomever they please." 3 id., at 158. She identified two problems that might result from that policy. First, in the preceding year a male inmate had escaped from a minimum security area and helped a female inmate to escape and remain at large for over a week. The witness speculated that they must have used the mails to plan their escape. The trial judge discounted this testimony because there was no proof that this or any other escape had been discussed in correspondence. Id., at 158-159. Second, the Kansas witness suggested that a ban on inmate correspondence would frustrate the development of a "gang problem." Id., at 160. In view of her acknowledgment that no gang problem had developed in Kansas despite its open correspondence rule, id., at [482 U.S. 78, 108] 158, the trial judge presumably also attached little weight to this prediction. Indeed, there is a certain irony in the fact that the Kansas expert witness was unable to persuade her superiors in Kansas to prohibit inmate-to-inmate correspondence, id., at 168, yet this Court apparently finds no reason to discount her speculative testimony. 6
The Missouri witness, Mr. Blackwell, also testified that one method of trying to discourage the organization of "gangs" of prisoners with ethnic or religious similarities is "by restricting correspondence." Id., at 267. He did not testify, however, that a total ban on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was an appropriate response to the potential gang problem. Indeed, he stated that the State's policy did not include a "carte blanche" denial of such correspondence, 7 and he did not even know that Renz was enforcing such a total ban. 8 His assertion that an open correspondence [482 U.S. 78, 109] policy would pose security problems was backed only by speculation:
The Court also relies on the fact that the inmates at Renz were not totally deprived of the opportunity to communicate with the outside world. This observation is simply irrelevant to the question whether the restrictions that were enforced were unnecessarily broad. Moreover, an evenhanded acceptance of this sort of argument would require upholding the Renz marriage regulation - which the Court quite properly invalidates - because that regulation also could have been even more restrictive.
The Court's final reason for concluding that the Renz prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence is reasonable is its belief that it would be "impossible" to read all such correspondence sent or received by the inmates at Renz. No such finding of impossibility was made by the District Court, nor would it be supported by any of the findings that it did make. The record tells us nothing about the total volume of inmate mail sent or received at Renz; much less does it indicate how many letters are sent to, or received from, inmates at other institutions. As the State itself observed at oral argument about the volume of correspondence:
The contrasts between the Court's acceptance of the challenge to the marriage regulation as overbroad and its rejection of the challenge to the correspondence rule are striking [482 U.S. 78, 113] and puzzling. 15 The Court inexplicably expresses different views about the security concerns common to prison marriages and prison mail. In the marriage context expert speculation about the security problems associated with "love triangles" is summarily rejected, while in the mail context speculation about the potential "gang problem" and the possible use of codes by prisoners receives virtually total deference. Moreover, while the Court correctly dismisses as a defense to the marriage rule the speculation that the inmate's spouse, once released from incarceration, would attempt to aid the inmate in escaping, 16 the Court grants virtually total credence to similar speculation about escape plans concealed in letters.
In addition, the Court disregards the same considerations it relies on to invalidate the marriage regulation when it turns to the mail regulation. The marriage rule is said to sweep too broadly because it is more restrictive than the routine practices at other Missouri correctional institutions, but the mail rule at Renz is not an "exaggerated response" even though it is more restrictive than practices in the remainder of the State. The Court finds the rehabilitative value of marriage apparent, but dismisses the value of corresponding with a friend who is also an inmate for the reason that communication with the outside world is not totally prohibited. The Court relies on the District Court's finding that the marriage regulation operated on the basis of "excessive paternalism" [482 U.S. 78, 114] toward female inmates, ante, at 99, but rejects the same court's factual findings on the correspondence regulation. Unfathomably, while rejecting the Superintendent's concerns about love triangles as an insufficient and invalid basis for the marriage regulation, the Court apparently accepts the same concerns as a valid basis for the mail regulation. 17 [482 U.S. 78, 115]
In pointing out these inconsistencies, I do not suggest that the Court's treatment of the marriage regulation is flawed; as I stated, I concur fully in that part of its opinion. I do suggest that consistent application of the Court's reasoning necessarily leads to a finding that the mail regulation applied at Renz is unconstitutional. 18
To the extent that this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I concur in its opinion. I respectfully dissent from the Court's partial reversal of that judgment on the basis of its own selective forays into the record. When all [482 U.S. 78, 116] the language about deference and security is set to one side, the Court's erratic use of the record to affirm the Court of Appeals only partially may rest on an unarticulated assumption that the marital state is fundamentally different from the exchange of mail in the satisfaction, solace, and support it affords to a confined inmate. Even if such a difference is recognized in literature, history, or anthropology, the text of the Constitution more clearly protects the right to communicate than the right to marry. In this case, both of these rights should receive constitutional recognition and protection.
[ Footnote 2 ] The Court cites portions of the trial transcript and the amicus curiae brief filed by the State of Texas, ante, at 91, 93, but completely ignores the findings of fact that were made by the District Court and that bind appellate courts unless clearly erroneous. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a). The Court does not and could not deem these particular findings clearly erroneous.
[ Footnote 3 ] 586 F. Supp. 589, 591 (WD Mo. 1984).
[ Footnote 4 ] The Court of Appeals may have used unnecessarily sweeping language in its opinion:
[ Footnote 5 ] Superintendent Turner had not experienced any problem with gang warfare at Renz. 2 Tr. 117. He had not found any correspondence between gang members coming into Renz. Id., at 118. He also conceded that it would be possible to screen out correspondence that posed the danger of leading to gang warfare:
[ Footnote 6 ] There is a further irony. While Missouri ostensibly does not have sufficient resources to permit and screen inmate-to-inmate mail, Kansas apparently lacks sufficient resources to ban it. Ms. Halford testified that open correspondence was not abrogated in the Kansas correctional system despite security concerns because her superiors felt that it was "too much of an effort to restrict it, that it tied up staff to send out all forms to the various and sundry institutions. So I think we're all basically in agreement that even though it is a problem to have open correspondence, the reason that we don't do it is simply staff time." 3 id., at 168.
[ Footnote 7 ] "Q. Those inmates who are allowed to write, you do not find it necessary to stop their correspondence as a matter of course; isn't that true?
[ Footnote 8 ] "Q. You do know that is the rule at Renz that they cannot write to other institutions unless the inmate is a relative?
[ Footnote 9 ] At the time of trial, the Renz Correctional Center contained both male and female prisoners of varying security level classifications. Most of the female inmates were medium and maximum security offenders, while most of the male inmates were minimum security offenders. 777 F.2d 1307, 1308 (CA8 1985).
[ Footnote 10 ] "Q. The question was do you realize the plaintiffs in this case accept the rights of the Division of Corrections to read all their mail if the Division wants to?
[ Footnote 11 ] "[I]n Kansas we have, our rules and regulations allow us to read all incoming mail. Due to the volume of mail that is absolutely impossible to do." 3 id., at 159.
[ Footnote 12 ] The average population at Renz in the 1983 fiscal year was 270. See American Correctional Assn., Juvenile and Adult Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Paroling Authorities 214 (1984).
When Ms. Halford was asked why the prison officials did not read all of the inmate mail, she gave this response:
[ Footnote 13 ] The Court's speculation, ante, at 88, 93, about the ability of prisoners to use codes is based on a suggestion in an amicus curiae brief, see Brief for State of Texas as Amicus Curiae 7-9, and is totally unsupported by record evidence.
[ Footnote 14 ] See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 23-6.1, Commentary, p. 23-76 (2d ed. 1980) ("[P]risoners can write at any length they choose, using any language they desire, to correspondents of their selection, including present or former prisoners, with no more controls than those which govern the public at large"). The American Correctional Association has set forth the "current standards deemed appropriate by detention facility managers and recognized organizations representing corrections." ACA, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities xiii (2d ed. 1981). Standard 2-5328 requires clear and convincing evidence to justify "limitations for reasons of public safety or facility order and security" on the volume, "length, language, content or source" of mail which an inmate may send or receive. Id., at 88.
[ Footnote 15 ] The Court's bifurcated treatment of the mail and marriage regulations leads to the absurd result that an inmate at Renz may marry another inmate, but may not carry on the courtship leading to the marriage by corresponding with him or her beforehand because he or she would not then be an "immediate family member."
[ Footnote 16 ] Explaining why the request of inmate Diana Finley to be married to inmate William Quillam was denied, Superintendent Turner stated: "If he gets out, then we have got some security problems. . . . The threat, if a man gets out of the penitentiary and he is married to her and he wants his wife with him, there is very little that we can do to stop an escape from that institution because we don't have the security, sophisticated security, like a maximum security institution." 1 Tr. 185-186. See also id., at 187.
[ Footnote 17 ] One of Superintendent Turner's articulated reasons for preventing one female inmate from corresponding with a male inmate closely tracks the "love triangle" rationale advanced for the marriage regulation:
[ Footnote 18 ] Having found a constitutional violation, the District Court has broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy. Cf. United States v. Paradise 480 U.S. 149, 155 -156, n. 4 (1987) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). The difficulties that a correspondence policy is likely to impose on prison officials screening inmate-to-inmate mail bear on the shaping of an appropriate remedy. It is improper, however, to rely on speculation about these difficulties to obliterate effective judicial review of state actions that abridge a prisoner's constitutional right to send and receive mail. [482 U.S. 78, 117]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 482 U.S. 78
Docket No: No. 85-1384
Argued: January 13, 1987
Decided: June 01, 1987
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Asian Peanut Butter Pork CrockPot Recipe
Happy February! I am slowly emerging from my piles of paper, and I can see the light at the end of the recipe-editing tunnel. Thank you for hanging in there. Something weird happens when you are only reading your own writing for weeks on end---your self-esteem goes on a crazy roller coaster ride. One minute you're high-fiving yourself, and in the next you think you completely suck. Over and over and over again. It's rather exhausting.
But! This peanut butter pork tenderloin doesn't suck. So I've been told. It came from an anonymous commenter back in the original pork post. Anon shares that she makes it every month for an ongoing potluck dinner and if she doesn't make it her friends get mad---it's that good.
The Ingredients
serves 4
1.5-2lbs pork tenderloin
1 onion, sliced in rings
1/4 cup soy sauce (I used La Choy; it's gluten free)
1/4 cup brown sugar
3 tablespoons white wine vinegar
3 tablespoons water
2 garlic cloves, chopped
1/2 cup creamy natural peanut butter
2 tablespoons chopped peanuts (garnish; optional)
1 lime, cut in wedges (garnish; optional)
The Directions.
Use a 4-6 quart crockpot. Put onion slices into the bottom of your crockpot. Put the pork on top. Add brown sugar, soy sauce, vinegar, water, garlic, and peanut butter. No need to stir--the peanut butter needs to melt before you can do so. Cover and cook on low for 8 hours, or on high for 4-6. The pork will be more tender the longer you cook it. 1 hour before serving, flip the meat over in the crockpot to allow the other side to soak up the peanutbuttery goodness. Garnish with chopped peanuts, and serve with lime wedges. The lime juice mixed with the peanut butter is delicious.
The Verdict.
I snuck a taste. sshhh. Don't tell my mom. It was good; quite tender. I made some more of the sauce to spoon over some already-cooked chicken I had in the fridge---it was fantastic. I packed the meat up for my friend Stephanie and family. When I asked what she thought, she told me that she had a problem. Her husband, Bill, was home from work and ate it all. She and the kids didn't get to try any of it. I'm thinking that means he liked it.
Thank you anon, for sharing your dish with us!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
United Parcel Service
Up to $17.00/hr.
paid weekly for Package HandlersShift: Sunrise/Preload (12:30 AM 8:00 AM) WAREHOUSE WORKER – PACKAGE HANDLERFind out what you'll become as a Package Handler at UPS.
In this fast-paced warehouse job, you'll lift, lower and slide packages up to 70 lbs.
You'll typically work 3 ½ 4 hour shifts, approximately 17 ½ 20 hours per week in this part-time or seasonal role.
As part of the UPS team, you'll receive a competitive hourly rate and an attractive benefits package.
Take the next step on your career journey as a Package Handler/Warehouse Worker at UPS.If you're a student at an approved college, university, trade or technical school, UPS offers an educational assistance program that could provide you with up to $25,000 for tuition, books and fees.
If you qualify, you'll be eligible for the program on your first day of work at UPS.UPS is an equal opportunity employer.
UPS does not discriminate on the basis of race/color/religion/sex/national origin/veteran/disability/age/sexual orientation/gender identity or any other characteristic protected by law


text:
The crowd gathered at 6 a.m., some sleeping in their cars overnight, in the nearby parking lot of a Lowe's Home Improvement store in Bakersfield to watch the planned implosion of the steam power plant owned by the public utility Pacific Gas and Electric that had been decommissioned for decades.
After buildings came down in a fiery crash, a police officer heard a man screaming for help and saw that his leg had been blown off.
"It was a piece of shrapnel that came flying out of the explosion and came across and went through a couple of chain link fences," said police Lt. Scott Tunnicliffe.
The 44-year-old victim also had major injuries to the other leg, and may lose it also, Tunnicliffe said. Officials declined to release his name.
Four other spectators were treated for minor injuries, said Kern County Fire engineer Leland Davis. All of the injured spectators were standing beyond a perimeter set up to ensure public safety, Davis said.
Fred Garten, 49, was standing behind the perimeter when a piece of metal roughly the size of a household door came flying at him and grazed his right leg, leaving his socks and shorts splattered with blood.
"It's a good gouge, but it's just scratches," Garten told the Bakersfield Californian, which first reported on the incident. "I just feel bad for the other guy. They took him away on a gurney, and I'm walking."
Kelly Patt, 21, who arrived five hours early to get a good view of the blast, said his girlfriend got sprayed with shrapnel but wasn't badly hurt. Patt said he was far more disturbed at seeing the man with the severed leg.
"I saw that dude's leg and I had to walk away," he told the Californian. "There was a lot of blood, a lot of blood."
Several cars were also damaged by the shrapnel.
Residents of the city about 100 miles northwest of Los Angeles were eager to see the old plant torn down to make way for new development. The plant was decommissioned in 1986 and has been idle ever since.
Pacific Gas and Electric reached an agreement with the city to clean up the property and prepare it for sale. The company hired subcontractors to handle the demolition of the plant's boiler structures and worked with local authorities to set up a safe perimeter 1,000 feet from the site, said Denny Boyles, a company spokesman.
"We are deeply saddened that this happened," Boyles said. "We're looking for answers like everyone else."
Boyles said the boiler structure consisted of two towers measuring 140 feet high that supported four 200,000 gallon tanks.
Cleveland Wrecking Co. of Covina, Calif., the main contractor on the demolition, issued a statement expressing sympathy and vowing a thorough investigation but declined further comment.
"This was a terrible accident, and our hearts go out to the individuals who were injured," the statement said. "We will be conducting a full investigation and will cooperate with the authorities."
Several subcontractors also worked on the project.
A previous accident at the same demolition site in 2012 killed a 51-year-old Cleveland Wrecking worker who was suspended in a basket and cutting beams with a torch when one of the beams hit him and he fell 50 feet to his death.
In June of this year in Philadelphia, the wall of a building under demolition collapsed onto a thrift store and killed six people. That contractor was not among those hired for the Bakersfield plant.


text:
Nokia Drive+ Beta now available for Windows Phone 8
Yesterday we did an extensive run through of Nokia Maps 3.0 on Windows Phone 8, and now the underlying maps platform has been enhanced it has picked up some nice new features. Today we see the arrival of the Beta version of Nokia Drive+
Drive+ picks up some nice additions that we're sure many existing Nokia Drive users will really appreciate, chief amongst them is the ability to fine tune how you want your journey to be planned and improved multitasking. We take a good look at what's new.
Interestingly this version of Drive has a version number of 2.0, interesting because Nokia Drive on Windows Phone 7 devices are now at version 3.0. In fact, Nokia have completely re-written Drive to take full advantage of the new OS.
The main feature many will be pleased to see in Drive is the ability to carefully tailor your journey. In use when you set your destination you'll be presented with a strip between your map and the destination details. If you click that row of icons you can now choose to allow or ignore certain routing paths.
Here is what you can now choose from
Smart Routing
- Faster Route
- Shorter Route
- Economical Route
Ways to go
- Motorways
- Toll Roads
- Ferries
- Tunnels
- Unpaved Roads
- Motor Rail Trains
Video demo of how it looks for your viewing pleasures...
Map performance
The next big change from Windows Phone 7 devices running Nokia Drive 3 is that the maps are now incredibly smooth, the screen updates with a very high frame rate so it all whizzes along like a healthy clip. This, like Nokia Maps we saw yesterday, is attributable to the platform enhancements that Nokia and Microsoft have worked to bring to Windows Phone 8.
This one caught me by surprise in testing at my desk, I navigated to another app and while carrying out another task the directions continued to chime. That's right folks, Nokia Drive on Windows Phone 8 now multitasks in the background. It will continue to give you directions, as long as you're not in a call or using the voice dictation features. I have been out this morning to test this and can confirm it works as you'd expect. The only thing I missed was being able to see the directions on screen, just for confirmation. This improves how it worked before where it would need to be resumed after navigating away.
Get the Windows Central Newsletter
All the latest news, reviews, and guides for Windows and Xbox diehards.
Also when listening to music over my hands free kit in the car I found the muting of the music to give direction prompts much better than before. On Nokia Drive 3.0 on Windows Phone 7 the volume of the announcements was almost double that of the Music so it was impossible to set the correct overall volume in the car leading me to doing one or the other.
Some clarification about Nokia Drive
Nokia Drive+ or Nokia Drive?
What is Nokia Drive plus? On Nokia smartphones running Windows Phone 8 it will be labelled as Nokia Drive+ while on other Windows Phone 8 devices it will simply be called Nokia Drive. We do not know when the Nokia Drive app will be available for other Windows Phone 8 devices but as soon as we know, we'll do a post.
Sounding off
This is certainly not a review of Nokia Drive+ as it's still in beta form but initial first impressions are this is a great improvement over what we had on Windows Phone 7. Notably the app continuing to give directions as a background task. We're beginning to see the first sightings of the real benefits that we were promised with Windows Phone 8. The platform upgrade is going to significantly change how we use our devices. Drive is still in Beta and we're assured that both "My Commute" and synced favourites are coming to Drive soon. We can't wait.
Grag it from the Windows Phone Store
Liking what you see or still feeling like there's something missing? We're always keen to hear from you guys and where possible I'll try and answer any questions you have in the comments bellow..


text:
Payment & Security
Your payment information is processed securely. We do not store credit card details nor have access to your credit card information.
The Biggest Fire Alarm Shop in the World!
- 1-Year Warranty
- 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee
- Same Day Shipping
- Worldwide Shipping
- World-Class Customer Success


text:
New to us? Talk to an Agent 318-654-7756
Visit our neighborhood office
610 Cypress St.
West Monroe, LA 71291
Service Requests 888-254-5014
Your home is a unique reflection of your style and personality. So, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work for you. That's where we come in. First, we listen to find out about you, your home, your valuables, your life. Then, we construct a policy that lets you live your life, knowing you've got the coverage you need.
Fire / Smoke
Water (Excluding Flood)
Windstorm / Hail
There's certainly more to it, but we're here to help. We'll ask you a lot of questions about your home before we start shopping, and encourage you to ask us questions too. Give us a call to get started.
Monitored Fire and Burglary Alarms
Multi-policy discount
Fire Extinguishers
A lot goes into choosing the right Homeowners policy. We're here to help by shopping the broadest array of insurance companies to find the coverage you need at a price you want.
To get started with a free quote, give us a call or leave us your contact information and we'll get in touch with you right away.
Reach out and we'll get back to you with a custom policy that fits your unique situation.


text:
Red Repettos, watercolor, 9" x 11" |
Dance, ballerina dance! Pick out your toe shoes.
Ahhh, that it were possible - size 6 svp. More ballerina fantasies. Note how Fr Girls wear bows in their hair. Alice Je T'aime. And these are not 7 yr-olds. They are grownups.
The fabled tutus on display.
'Oui, I'll have the white one on the left svp.
'Yeah I'm in Swan Lake ya know' More ballerina outfits to twirl around at home, chez vous.The endless colors. Merci Repetto. Just like a macaron shop non?
Ballerines = Macarons
Trop délicieuse. J'Adore. Miam-Miam
Cross the street.


text:
The Wonderful World of Oz: Selections from the Willard Carroll/Tom Wilhite Collection
The Wonderful World of Oz: Selections from the Willard Carroll/Tom Wilhite Collection
In 1900, when his book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published, writer L. Frank Baum was a magazine editor in Chicago who wrote children's books on the side, largely to entertain his four sons. The magical tale, with its illustrations by W. W. Denslow, was an immediate hit. A stage version premiered in 1902, and Baum set to work on a series of sequels to the tale of Dorothy in the strange land of Oz. Now, 116 years later, the story is an essential part of American history and culture, and continues to inspire and entertain new generations.
Drawn from the largest collection of materials relating to the Wizard of Oz story and characters, the exhibition will feature 110 objects, from the finest known copy of the first edition/first state of Baum's 1900 book, to original sketches, costumes and props from the beloved 1939 movie starring Judy Garland, to Oz spinoffs such as puppets, toys and posters from other productions like Wicked and The Wiz. Highlights from the MGM film include the hourglass the Wicked Witch of the West uses to show Dorothy how much time she has left, the Green Lollipop Guild Munchkin costume (the most complete from the film) and Dorothy's screen-test dress. The Willard Carroll/Tom Wilhite Collection is being shown at the Figge through the generosity of the collectors, who intend to create a permanent National Oz Museum.
Exhibition organized by the Farnsworth Art Museum, Rockland, Maine
Boris Grinnson, two-panel poster for the French release of Le Magicien d'Oz (The Wizard of Oz), 1940, MGM, France, color lithograph, Courtesy of The Willard Carroll / Tom Wilhite Collection
Collector Talk: Willard Carroll
4 pm Sunday, June 12
Exhibition Open House: The Wonderful World of Oz
5 pm Thursday, June 16
Family Day
10 am Saturday, July 16
Film Talk: There's No Place Like Home: The Wizard of Oz as a Tale of Migration
7 pm Thursday, July 21
Film Talk: John Fricke
7 pm Thursday, August 11
Screening of The Wizard of Oz (1939)
2 pm and 7 pm Saturday, August 13
Adler Theatre in downtown Davenport
$3 per person or $10 family pack (max. 5 people)
Exhibition Tours
1:30 pm Saturday, June 25
1:30 pm Sunday, June 26 and July 17


text:
This course will introduce you to Virtual Reality (VR). The course will teach you everything from the basics of VR- the hardware and the history of VR- to different applications of VR, the psychology of Virtual Reality, and the challenges of the medium.
The course is designed for people who are new to VR as a medium. You may have experienced some virtual reality before, and may have some hardware- but this course is suitable to individuals who have never experienced VR and those who do not have much hardware- we will explain Mobile VR as well as devices such as the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive.
Introduction to Virtual Reality is the first course in the Virtual Reality Specialisation. A learner with no previous experience in Virtual Reality and/or game programming will be able to evaluate existing VR applications, and design, test, and implement their own VR experiences/games using Unity by the end of the specialisation.


text:
Chicago Outside General Counsel Services
How it Works
Steven Stark
Sue Dunbar
Joshua Garber
Drew Whiting
Anastasios Garbis
Scott Weisman
Michael Denker
Edward Hauder
Edward Farmer
George Svoboda
Chicago Outside General Counsel Services
Why use UpCounsel to hire a Chicago Outside General Counsel?
Average experience
You always get experienced professionals and high caliber work.
Your work gets done quickly because professionals are always available.
More cost effective
We use technology to cut traditional overhead and save you thousands.
UpCounsel has been talked about in:
Money-Back Guarantee on All of Your Legal Work
Applies to all transactions with verified attorneys on UpCounsel
In the event that you are unsatisfied with the work of an attorney you hired on UpCounsel, just let us know. We'll take care of it and refund your money up to $5,000 so you can hire another attorney to help you.Legal Services Offered by Our On-Demand Chicago Outside General Counsel
An UpCounsel Chicago outside general counsel attorney can help handle day-to-day legal matters, working as a senior business attorney on an on-demand basis at a fraction of the cost of either hiring a full-time executive-level in-house general counsel or relying exclusively on a more traditional and expensive law firm counsel in Chicago.
Whether you need help with contract drafting or negotiations, employment, licensing agreements, intellectual property protection, corporate maintenance, due diligence, leases, or a range of other business legal services, you can easily connect with and hire a top Chicago outside general counsel on-demand or on an ongoing basis. UpCounsel clients typically develop a working relationship with one outside general counsel lawyer that services the Chicago, IL but have access to the whole team attorneys in our network for specific law expertise.
Improve Your Legal ROI with Affordable Outside Counsel that service Chicago, IL.
What Our Customers Have to Say
"UpCounsel gives me access to big-firm lawyers minus the big-firm price tag. I work with several attorneys on the platform and there are never surprises...I always receive quality legal work at competitive rates that larger firms simply cannot match."
"Every startup needs to know about UpCounsel. We found great attorneys at great prices and were able to focus our resources on improving our business instead of paying legal bills."
"Before UpCounsel it was hard for us to find the right lawyer with the right expertise for our business. UpCounsel solves those problems by being more affordable and helping us find the right lawyer in no time."


text:
- 3
- 8
- 4
- 3
- 11
- 8
Great art deserves to be on canvas. Unlike cheap posters and paper prints that require additional framing, giclee canvas artwork offers the texture, look and feel of fine-art paintings. This artwork is crafted in the usa with artist-grade canvas, professionally hand-stretched and stapled over north american pine-wood bars in gallery wrap style.
- Hand assembled by highly trained craftsmen
- Fade resistant Epson UltraChrome archival inks
- Highest grade, water-proof and scratch-resistant canvas
- Finest North American pine wood
- Ready to hang right out of the box
- Free hanging accessories and instructions included
- Absolutely no assembly needed
- 60 Days - Manufacturer Defects ONLY
- Artist-grade cotton and poly canvas and pine wood bars
- Dust gently or softly wipe clean
- Made in USA
- Request warranty information
Web ID: 7571606


text:
DEARBORN, Mich. -- Don't expect to converse with your car quite like David Hasselhoff and KITT did in the '80s TV classic "Knight Rider," but voice recognition is one of the...
see moreDEARBORN, Mich. -- Don't expect to converse with your car quite like David Hasselhoff and KITT did in the '80s TV classic "Knight Rider," but voice recognition is one of the big looming trends in the automobile industry.
For years already, some drivers who seek out the latest and greatest in technology have been talking to their cars when they want to listen to music, turn up the air conditioner or get directions.
No need to look away from the road or blindly reach for a knob or button, just speak a command aloud and the car obeys
Voice recognition and other high-tech features are expected to become far more mainstream in the months and years ahead, as automakers race to outdo each other and tap into consumer demand for an app-inspired, always-connected lifestyle on the road.
CD players have been replaced by hard drives that can store tens of thousands of MP3s, or drivers can connect a smartphone and use its data connection to stream music via the Internet. Dedicated GPS navigation systems are being phased out in favour of multi-function digital panels that look like a smartphone or tablet homescreen, populated with a long list of apps.
"Automakers are trying to replicate that smartphone/touchscreen experience that people are used to and like," says industry analyst and consultant Doug Newcomb.
"Car buyers really want this, that's why automakers are doing it, technology really helps them sell cars."
Perhaps there was no clearer sign that companies are serious about competing to develop the coolest, most advanced in-car technology than an Apple announcement in June. The tech giant revealed it's working with nine automakers to integrate its popular voice-recognition tool Siri into vehicles.
Meanwhile, BMW and Honda are among the car manufacturers that are releasing new in-car technology in Canada this fall.
And at the forefront of the trend has been Ford, one of the more aggressive companies in delivering in-car voice technology to the mass market with its Sync product, which has already been around for about five years.
With Sync, drivers can press a button on the steering wheel and voice their desire to place a phone call, control the stereo, make their vehicle warmer or cooler, or get directions. Ford claims the system recognizes 10,000 different commands -- although there's no master list available to consumers so that's difficult to verify.
"Our world is changing," Bill Ford, Ford's chairman, said at a recent press event in Dearborn, Mich.
"We've got over four million vehicles with Sync on the road today and what's cool is we have an open platform, so developers are developing apps for Sync. And we love that, that's why we did it."
Among those apps available for Sync in the U.S. are the audio streaming services Pandora, MOG and Slacker Radio, a program to listen to tweets posted to Twitter, and another that gives allergy sufferers an update on pollen levels in the local area.
Critics, however, have noted that Sync's ability to understand strings of spoken words is nowhere near as robust as Siri's. Drivers must learn how to speak to the Sync system, which often doesn't respond to natural speech and instead needs to hear a sequence of spoken commands to complete a task. If your wording is a little off, you'll be prompted to try again. And don't even think of asking jokey questions like you can with Siri.
"It's getting better but it's still not there, it's still all over the map," says Newcomb.
"They're still in that learning phase, a growing pains phase."
The market leader in voice technology is Nuance Communications, which powers Ford's Sync. Gary Clayton, chief creative officer for Nuance, says the technology is constantly evolving and becoming more intelligent. As of now, most voice recognition systems need to be prompted before they'll listen for user commands. But eventually, the technology will always be listening and will be able to recognize and distinguish between different voices.
"It's coming but that's a very, very complex (problem)," Clayton explains.
"There are so many fundamental things that have to be dealt with.... It's things like: who else is in the car, what else is being said ... all kinds of spurious things are coming in from the radio, from other people.
"We have to continually poll the incoming audio to understand who is speaking, but with biometric verification -- it hears this voice, it knows that voice -- it (will eventually) automatically pay attention to that voice."
Another major in-car technology player behind the scenes is Ottawa-based QNX, which is owned by Research in Motion. RIM purchased QNX in 2010 and took advantage of its software expertise to help build its upcoming BlackBerry 10 mobile operating system. QNX has also developed software for nuclear power plants; coal, iron, copper, and gold mines; steam and gas turbines; HVAC systems for big box stores; and sorting equipment used by the U.S. Postal Service.
QNX's reputation for developing software with rock-solid stability has won it a number of contracts to provide technology for automakers, including Audi, BMW, Chrysler, General Motors, Hyundai and Toyota, said product marketing manager Andy Gryc.
"Car companies generally tend to be pretty brand sensitive, nobody wants to get a 'blue screen of death' or pull over and have to reboot their car, so that's actually really helped in terms of our ability to service the market and we're continuing to build on that."
Gryc assesses the current state of voice technology as a "mixed bag" but says the technology coming down the pipe is truly impressive -- although it may take a few years until it hits the mass market.
"Most consumers view (today's voice technology) as kind of a gimmicky thing because it is sort of like, 'Well, do you really want to do some of those things with voice?' Clearly some things are very natural to do with voice, like navigation is one that's very, very clear that's a good use case," he says.
The technology that's about two or three years out will really wow consumers, he says, as opposed to simply being seen as "kinda neat" today.
"It'll certainly take a couple of years just to get through the automotive production life cycle. Even if automakers snapped their fingers and said today, 'I want to build a system that's just like Siri,' the technology exists to do it but it's just that they'd have to go through the process of building automotive-grade hardware. It's not acceptable to just take a tablet and put it into the dash."
One of the challenges for automakers is in making sure that its technology ages well over the years and is built so it can be upgraded with software. Hardware upgrades are not practical, at least at this point, Gryc adds.
"Swappable chips is a lot more complicated in a car environment just because of a lot of the restrictions you need to take into account for vibration -- or 'shake, rattle and roll,' as they call it -- and temperature sensitivities," he says.
"Most of the car companies have not been looking at that as a solution."
Ford has used software updates to add new features and address problems and complaints. Ford previously had major issues with the touchscreen side of its technology, which caused frustrating system crashes.
"Ford kind of got penalized by being a pioneer," Newcomb says.
"No one's really figured this out yet, it's going to take two or three years before this really shakes out."
© Copyright (c) Postmedia NewsOriginal source article: Get ready for cars that listen, talk and act like a smartphone
Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/personal-tech/index.html/ready+cars+that+listen+talk+like+smartphone/7168747/story.html#ixzz2597Kh5l8


text:
This course provides you with a lifelong peer-to-peer learning opportunity through a specific Performance Group created within the Career Ed Lounge, a learning community of career education professionals. This allows you to learn and share with your peers at any time you want, even after you complete the course.
Please review our Terms of Service for additional information regarding your use of this site.
Stress Management
Course Format
Completion Requirements
Certificate of Completion
MaxKnowledge is pleased to feature content from Harvard ManageMentor® in its management courses. This content is provided by Harvard Business Publishing, a non-for-profit organization whose mission is to improve the practice of management and its impact in a changing world. Learn more about Harvard ManageMentor® and Harvard Business Publishing below.
Presented within a media-rich, interactive design, Harvard ManageMentor® 10 features more than 40 modules with practical advice, downloadable tools, and time-saving tips on key management topics to help managers build skills quickly for an immediate impact on performance. More than two million managers around the world rely on Harvard ManageMentor® and its high-quality management content drawn from foremost practitioners, renowned experts, and business leaders.
Headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts, Harvard Business Publishing is the leading provider of teaching materials for management education. HBP's offerings include:
For more information, visit hbsp.harvard.edu.


text:
Hmmm, what could this be?
...it's an advance copy of my book!
Apologies for the bad photo but my hands are shaking. A cup of tea and a comfy chair are in order, I'm off for a flick through!
Oh very well done, it is a great feeling, getting your first book - someone compared it to giving birth, (though that's not something I'm qualified to opine on!) It looks lovely; sadly there will always be stupid unmentionables who have no true values. but I am sure that once your book is out there getting bought up by people who DO appreciate your work, that person might somewhat regret their unkind words.
I and many would love a 'stuffed toy' made by you.
Do not let it worry you, as the other comment above says there are always people like that.
But there are more and more people who love handmade and love your work.
So congratulations on the book. It looks wonderful.xx
whoever said that does not derserve your crafted gift.
How exciting to have it in your hands though!
and will the commenter be getting a copy ?
That fox......kills me
How completely exciting - a massive congrats to you!!!!
p.s like BBB said, anyone not made up to recieve a hand made pressie, let alone off you must be a complete muppet!
Huge congrats to you. How exciting....and I can say I know the author :-)
A x
Some people think gifts have to be bought... I bet if you said you bought your plushies at a design store, instead of made them, they wouldn't find a flaw in it.
But anyway, congrats on the book! I'm looking forward to it. :)
What? Someone seriously said that? What a twat! Congrats on the book - more proof that you are immensely talented and your creations are better than any that could be bought in a shop.
How exciting!!
I have mine on order and can't wait!
You are published!! Wrap yourself in that feeling and forget those comments.
Well done
Ali x
Congratulations!! Love that fox. That comment made me laugh - I know/am related to some people like that and they just have no idea.
congrats! it must be a wonderful feeling!
p.s-i think you have the last laugh (in regards to the comment you mentioned)
Congratulations on the book !
I've seen a lot of cute things but that fox is one of the dearest. Congrats!
Love your work! Congrats on your book!
There seem to be some horrid people out there who (perhaps) only have Blogland where they can leave their nasty little comments...
I love your work! Good luck with the book sales!
BRILLIANT! well done. Your hard work pays off and you so deserve it.
How much time ww have to wait to order it?
How exciting, well done.
I wonder if the person who made that comment can actually make a stuffed toy themselves.
Congratulations on your book, I'm sure it will do well :)
I am very happy for you Amy I'm sure it will be a huge success.
Jo x
Wow! Congratulations on such a wonderful achievement. Rachael Xx
You are awesome! Congrats on the book - no wonder your hands are shaking! Thrilled for you!
I think your "stuffed toys" are magnificent! Congrats x 1000 on the book!
I can't believe somebody would say that! How rude!
You and your softies clearly rock!
That is awesome. I know it has been quite the journey to get to this point. Well done!!!!
It looks beautiful book!!!!
Some people may say something negative about your artwork, maybe because they are jealous of your talent!
wow all that hard work made worth while what a great feeling it must be! - congratulations :)
Was that a family member/friend/recipient of said gift who made that comment? If so... I would kick them :)
I think "a stuffed toy of some description (you have) made" would be an awesome present! - super excited for your book to come out this spring... that fox needs to be recreated and live in my house :)
Published or not, I would love to get a gift from you! Having your name in print has to be so satisfying!! Well done.
Congratulations on your book!! Whoever made that comment is clearly (to be blunt) a bit of an idiot! x
That is so great! I am off to order your book, your work is worth it! I love originality that your designs give!
well done!
How exciting it must be to hold your own book! This one is on my shopping list for sure, I can't wait to see all your lovely designs.
I still have the magazines my mom was published in! A treasure indeed. I have already ordered my copy!
You go girl! A well deserved sit down and cuppa I would say!
Congratulations! I can't believe someone made such an ignorant comment about your gorgeous creations! Just shows their poor taste. Don't let it put a damper on your joy of this glorious moment. Soak it in and savor every moment!
Congrats Kate!!! That's so exciting and wonderful. Don't you know that commenter will feel foolish when she realizes that she doesn't have a clue about what is art. Obviously the important ones realized your talent. I adore the fox!
Hugs...Tracy :)
Wow, how rude some people can be! Sorry you had to be subjected to that, when clearly it was a gift worth a lot more than a lousy couple of minutes grabbing something off a store shelf.
Anyway, forget all that - how exciting that the book has arrived!! :D
I'm new to your blog, but have been admiring your amazing creations - as someone who gives handmade gifts as Christmas presents, I am outraged that someone would say that! I would definitely give that person a copy of your book with a note attached advising that the' value' of their 'rubbish' present will now have risen...congrats on your book :)
I can't believe someone made that comment about you! Incredible! But how totally exciting to have a copy of your book in your very own hands! I'll be buying a copy when it hits the shops that's for sure. Lucy x
That is the downside to handmade loveliness, some people just don't understand.
How terrifically thrilling about your book. I shall be stalking Amazon come the Spring.
Congratulations on your book!!! This is all very exciting :) don't let anyone ruin this moment for you; they are not worth it!
Congratulations this is amazing : ) xxx
congratulations! must be very exciting xx
Congratulations, how wonderful to hold a book that you created.
I'm glad you didn't let a comment like that stop you! ( one made to me almost 45 years ago still rankles!) Your book is a great achievement! Congratulations... and three cheers!
We have folks like that in our family. They don't get handmade anymore....and since I only give handmade....oh, gee, did that package get lost in the mail again? So sorry about that.
Congratulations! Well deserved. Keep up the good and beautiful work.
Congratulations, it looks gorgeous!
Well done, Kate. Now where and when can I buy a copy? x
So sorry, I meant to type 'Amy' and it came out 'Kate'. Fab new book by Amy Adams xxx
when and where will it be available
Congratulations on your new book!!!! Sorry to hear that someone was so rude and insulting about something you had put your love into making. Some people just don't know the value of things. So sad for them. I can't await to see your new book, it looks adorable!
very exciting... congratulations
wow congratulations! I think I'd be the same too if I ever make it into print!
OMG - what a stupid remark!!! I can't say how upset people like that make me.
I know it hurts anyways, but you and all of your readers KNOW that your designs are absolutely adorable. Much, MUCH LOVE!!! ♥♥♥
Can't wait to get my hands on your book. I love your fox, it's definitely a big must-have for me.
You are great!!!
How very exciting!
...Ignore the pongo comment some people shouldn't speak...
Looking forward to having a peep myself!
kisses X
I once showed a friend a patchwork bag I had made and was really pleased with, having worked it all out myself... the comment was 'why didn't you just buy one?'! She was genuinely puzzled. Some people really don't get it, but you have to laugh. My friend is still a good friend. Your book looks wonderful.
@Lace hearts - I have come across this 'puzzlement' many times - including from my husband, who just doesn't understand why I don't buy our cushion covers from a shop, instead of going through the hassle of making them!!