prison administrators, since it is they who must work among the inmates where the effects of the contraband are most strongly felt.” We echo the sentiments of the parties. “[Cjentral to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). Further, in prisons there exists “the ever-present potential for violent confrontation and conflagration.” Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 132, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2541, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977). Correctional facilities are unique places “fraught with serious security dangers.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. at 1884; Hunter v. Auger, 672 F.2d 668, 674 (8th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Clearly, the security problems faced by
holding under indiana code section 313262 that the juvenile court erred in releasing the transcript of a confidential proceeding to news media recognizing that incidents in which inmates have obtained drugs weapons and other contraband are welldocumented in case law and regularly receive the attention of the news media recognizing first amendment protection for news gathering holding that access rights of the news media and of the general public are identical in scope holding that representatives of the news media have the standing to contest a court order restricting public access to legal proceedings