lished by law in the definition of freedom of speech and the press, and in my opinion, is properly included in the act.

I have serious question, however, as to the language which it is proposed to add:

* * * and no person shall knowingly make or publish any false accusation or charge against any person * * *.

Not only does this violate the principles of free speech described by the Supreme Court in the Grosjean case, the Near case, the Bridges case, and in the contempt cases recently decided; but as a practical matter, it would make it impossible for discussion to be had over the radio, even of cases in which persons were being tried for publishing false accusations or charges.

My argument goes primarily to the first point. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Near case, our concept of freedom of speech insists that there shall be freedom, even to make false accusations and charges, particularly against public officers, in order that the essential characteristic of freedom of speech as a protection against Government overreaching may be satisfied. There is no reason why such a limitation should be imposed in the case of radio broadcasting any more than in the case of the press. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Near case, the requirements of free speech and press even override the danger of forceful reprisals resulting from such charges; thus establishing a limitation upon legislative action or administrative action against freedom of speech which is more severe than it is in the case of police regulations generally.

While there is, of course, a persuasive argument which can be made in favor of such an abridgment, and a return to the English concept of freedom of speech, that is not the concept which was written into the first amendment; it is not the concept which has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in many cases.

If Congress has now come to a time when it wishes to abandon the established American concept of the freedom of speech and of the press and go back to the system existing in England at the time of the Colonies, then it should do so by initiating a constitutional amendment, which will reveal clearly the change in fundamental law which it proposes.

Self-control and self-discipline; many complaints are made against radio broadcasters on the theory that they are not "cleaning up their own house." As a matter of fact, the broadcasters are making very strenuous efforts in that direction and have accomplished a great deal in the improvement of radio broadcasting programs. But the important point which I wish to emphasize here, is that no self-respecting body of men can be expected to assume responsibilities of the kind called for in professional controls and in self-discipline, when they are being subjected constantly to interference, reprisals, and intimidation from a Government agency. Such activities of Government have always been destructive of human freedom and of the assumption of responsibility and self-discipline by an independent people. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for insisting upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press according to American concepts.

It is of great importance that Congress should seriously reconsider present trends in legislation and in administrative activities, respecting the media of free speech and the press, especially because of the situation which has developed with respect to free communication of ideas on the international scene. We are not in a very consistent position when we demand that other countries lift the "iron curtain" and subscribe to our concepts of free communication, when we are at the same time engaged in a steady process of encroachment upon freedom of speech and the press in this country.

Senator MCFARLAND. I want to thank you and express my appreciation for approving at least one thing that the distinguished chairman has put in the bill. You say section 20 is all right. I am glad to hear that you approve something.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. I am sure if I had had more time to work on the bill, I could have found other points to which I could have pointed directly. I have been very busy finding out the ones that I thought were dangerous.

Senator MCFARLAND. Excuse me, I learn you do not agree with all of section 20.

Mr. MILLER. I have one qualification.

Senator MCFARLAND. I had thought-for a moment-you agreed with it.

Mr. MILLER. Merely to preserve the record. I did that deliberately, because some of the language of the Supreme Court in the press cases has suggested that even that limitation would be proper and I intend to fight for the analogy all the way through. I have already made the point that I covered on page 50 to the effect that when a government starts nursing a group of people, you lose the independence which you get from a free operating people.

Let me call your attention to one point in that connection particularly, the test which the Commission is using in granting the licenses preferably to people who live in a community Senator; what would have happened to your State and mine if that kind of a bar against capital had been imposed? Suppose that no newspaper could have been started in Arizona or in California, unless it was started by someone who already lived there, and provided the capital for it. Many, many of the instances in which industry developed out in the far West are instances in which some youngster was grubstaked and sent out from this part of the country to those Western States to engage in new operations, and publishing newspapers was apparently one of the favorite ones.

I do not suggest a limitation on that kind of a test. I merely call attention to the implications, the subtle implications that come from just such simple, apparently simple little things as that.

Senator MCFARLAND. I would say that if there were two people applying who had equal qualifications, the local man ought to be preferred. He understands the needs of the local community better. Mr. MILLER. That may be. What would have happened to our country if that had been the rule?

Senator MCFARLAND. I think it would have gone along just fine. The examples you are talking about are those in which no local person

'was available to do the job, so someone else from the outside came in and did it. So your example would not have had a thing in the world to do with the progress of the art.

Mr. MILLER. Maybe that is the answer.

Senator MCFARLAND. Outside capital goes into a place when and where the local people cannot do the job. Someone comes in and says, here is an opportunity for me to put my money in and do this job.

Mr. MILLER. Is that the only case? Is there not sometimes bitter competition between the local people and someone who comes in from the outside? I would not ask you the question, because you do not answer questions, but I think that is frequently the case.

Senator MCFARLAND. I. will answer the question. Certainly, but here we are granting a monopoly to a licensee. You have to choose. If it was free territory and we could allow all who desired to come in, why, that would be fine. But if we are going to grant a monopoly, the local man comes nearer knowing what the people want and need and is more deserving of having the monopoly under the public inter

est test.

Mr. MILLER. We discovered there is not much of a monopoly where, in Tucson, they have granted five licenses in that community. I make no objection to it. I think they ought to grant as many as there are frequencies, and to as many as are qualified to ask for them. At the present time we have an international situation in which we are demanding the lifting of the iron curtain. We are demanding respect for freedom of communications without limitation. I suggest that to be consistent we should be most anxious to protect to the uttermost limit the guarantees of our own first amendment. This is certainly no time to be breaking down the guarantees of freedom of speech and press and other forms of communication. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We have here communications from 13 other people who would like to be heard this afternoon, and we have less than approximately 45 minutes to give to them. I am going to suggest, since I believe 5 of these persons desiring to appear are also members of the NAB organization, and to express the hope that they will file their briefs, and, unless there is something very particular and special in what they filed which they want to amplify a bit, that they rest on their briefs, because we are moving much more slowly than I had anticipated.

The first on the list following Judge Miller is Mr. Petty.

STATEMENT OF DON PETTY, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. PETTY. I am going to discuss the appellate sections. I have prepared a statement which I filed last night. I think I can go through it very fast, and there may be some points which you may want to ask questions about. I will highlight them and will be glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I think with due regard to all that want to be heard, unless you have some statement that you want to make in amplification of the brief, I think you better file your brief.

Mr. PETTY. I would like to have the brief made a part of the record, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted in the record.

Mr. PETTY. I will point out three very short points in about 3 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. PETTY. This does not include questioning, however. I will hold myself to that time. If you will read my brief, that is all I want. I would like to point out three things.

The CHAIRMAN. Identify yourself.

Mr. PETTY. My name is Don Petty. I am general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters.

In the first place, this bill, S. 1333, însofar as it relates to the appellate procedural sections, is going in the correct direction in my opinion. I like very much the ideas of the cease-and-desist order principles which have been placed in the bill.

However, I would like to point out that this proposed bill limits and restricts rights granted to citizens by the Administrative Procedures Act passed by Congress in 1946. Let me give you one example.

Under the declaratory-order section of S. 1333, the section which was being discussed yesterday, the granting of relief would be permissive only. It is limited in that it does not include uncertainties; and, unless the words "sound discretion" as used in the Administrative Procedures Act are included in this section, issuance of declaratory orders would be permissive only with the Commission. I have fully discussed this subject, as well as other inconsistencies between S. 1333 and the Administrative Procedures Act, in my written statement.

I would like to call your attention particularly to the subjects of renewals and revocations, which I have discussed in my written statement. Concerning revocations, as the proposed bill is written, the Commission would first issue a cease-and-desist order under certain circumstances, and then it would have the power to revoke for, among other things, the violation of the cease-and-desist order. In my written statement I suggested that the Commission use a cease-and-desist-order method, but I go further. In the event they want to institute an action for revocation, then the Commission would recommend that revocation to the United States District Attorney in and for the district in which the broadcaster is located. Thus, the United States district attorney, rather than the Commission, would be in charge of revocation proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you file that suggestion in draft form for our consideration?

Mr. PETTY. I have already prepared the suggested draft, and it is included in my statement filed with you.

Senator MCFARLAND. Do you feel that generally speaking there is a need for legislation on communications?

Mr. PETTY. At the present time the Administrative Procedures Act sections apply, and there is no question about it. S. 1333 should

not limit any of the sections of the Administrative Procedures Act. Senator MCFARLAND. I do not mean necessarily just on procedural matters, but the whole field. Do you think there is need for legislation? Mr. PETTY. That is a hard question to answer. As far as the procedural and appellate sections are concerned, I would much prefer to see them tied into the Administrative Procedures Act closer than they are, and there is a very good reason for that. When the WhiteWheeler bill was first written, the Administrative Procedures Act was not in effect. That only came into effect last year. It is understandable that in S. 1333, many of the sections of which are pulled out of the White-Wheeler bill, that there would be inconsistency with the Administrative Procedures Act.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have said something worth while there. Senator MCFARLAND. We are just talking about procedure. What I was wondering, however, do you think there is a general need for legislation in regard to, or amendments to, the communications act? Mr. PETTY. Personally, no.

Senator MCFARLAND. The point that I was trying to arrive at, Mr. Chairman is this. Judge Miller suggested that he would be willing to write a bill. I thought maybe if the broadcasters would write up the legislation they thought ought to be adopted, and submit the bill, while, as I said to Judge Miller, I did not want to say that I would sponsor the bill nor would I say in advance that I would sponsor legislation that the Federal Communications Commission would write, but if they would all submit the bills that they want, maybe we could make comparisons, and see just exactly what they do want, if anything. Mr. PETTY. I believe that is a very good suggestion, and along the same line, at the time this S. 1333 was introduced, the chairman issued statement concerning this hearing today. The suggestions which are being made here to you gentlemen today are not suggestions intended to be critical, but rather intended to be helpful, because in the statement you indicated that you did want suggestions presented to you here at this hearing. We would be very happy to work with you, and to work with Mr. Cooper and you, Mr. Chairman, in any way.

Senator MCFARLAND. I do not know that we need to have anyone work with us, except to give us the kind of a bill that you think ought to be adopted, and what ought to be in this law. Then, maybe, we can get something from the FCC.

Mr. PETTY. If I have more time than I had to prepare for this hearing, I would be glad to do it.

Senator MCFARLAND. If you do not think anything should be done, then you will not have to work. That is what I was trying to find out,

Mr. MILLER. I shall be very happy to see that our general counsel does prepare such a bill.

Senator MCFARLAND. He says we do not need one. You will be the one that has to prepare it.

Mr. PETTY. Oh, no, Senator. I'll be happy to prepare a bill.

I have discussed the matter of revocations briefly, and as I have said, I place that in the Federal court. In order to tie in the renewal section along with the revocation section, I have suggested that the

65141-47-
-13