wise specifically authorized by the law, and the other part, namely subsection (b), would provide that the Commission

shall have no power to censor, alter, or in any manner affect or control the substance of any material to be broadcast by any radio broadcast station— and, further, that the Commission in its consideration of applications for renewal of licenses shall have the authority to determine whether or not the licensee has operated in the public's interest.

It is this last provision that has been met by such a torrent of objections from the radio broadcasting industry and the NAB. It is submitted that the power granted to the Commission by subsection (d) is necessary and vital if the Commission is to carry out the expressed intent of the Congress as set forth in the Federal Communications Commission Act of 1934, as amended, that stations shall be operated in the public's interest. The Federal Communications Commission cannot determine, in renewing a license, whether such action is in the public's interest unless it has the power to review the past operation of the station, but such power does not mean that the Commission can regulate the business of the licensee.

Pursuant to the provisions of section 17, two new sections, namely 330 and 331, will be added to the Federal Communications Commission Act. If a radio broadcasting station is used for the presentation of political or public questions otherwise than as provided in section 315, discussed above, it shall be the duty of the licensee of any station to afford equal opportunities for the presentation of different views on such question, subject, however to the qualifications that the station does not have to devote more than twice as much time in the aggregate to present different views than was made available to the original user

or users.

Further, neither the station nor the Commission may censor, alter, or in any manner affect or control the substance of any program material so used, provided, however, that no station shall be required to permit the broadcasting of any material which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence and, further, provided that no station shall be required to broadcast any material which might subject the licensee to liability for damages or to penalty or forfeiture under any local, State, or Federal law or regulation.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt? You are reading this brief. That is just what I did not want you to do. I wanted you to either make a statement relying on your brief, or a supplemental statement, if you cared to do that. Because we are not going to get through here within the required time if you are going to read all of this. I would prefer that you file it.

Miss ANTHONY. I do not have very much more, if you will bear with me.

The CHAIRMAN. I will bear with you, at the expense of the next witness, I am afraid. Will you proceed, then?

Miss ANTHONY. To continue. In addition, the licensee shall have the right to demand and receive a complete and accurate copy of the material to be broadcast a sufficient time in advance of its intended use to permit an examination thereof and the deletion therefrom of any material necessary to conform the same to the requirements of this section.

It is submitted that the power granted to the station to delete material which it regards as libelous may be utilized to censor that with which the station does not agree. The Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in Near v. The State of Minnesota ex rel Olson (283 U. S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 1931) said:

In determining the extent of the constitutional protection—

that is, freedom of the press

* * *

it has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the guarantee to prevent previous restraints upon publication. The liberty deemed to be established was thus described by Blackstone: "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state, but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal he must take the consequence of his own temerity."

* * *

It is suggested that the proposed amendment contain a provision similar to the provision to be added to section 315, prohibiting the station from censoring such material but relieving it from the responsibility for libel, et cetera.

Further, section 17 provides that stations broadcasting programs under section 315 or section 330 give the name of the speaker, the subject of the discussion, the capacity in which the speaker appears, how the time for the broadcast was made available and, if paid for, by whom.

Section 18 provides for a new section, 332, to the act and would require that all news items or the discussion of current events be identified generally as to source, and all editorial or interpretative comment, if any, concerning such items or events be identified as such and as to sources and responsibility; further, an announcement to such effect must be made at the beginning and end of every broadcast. If a commentator on the air or a reporter on a newspaper is forced, as a matter of law, to specify the source of his news, and we must remember that he is responsible for anything that he says which is libelous or untrue, very little news will be forthcoming-it is another method of limiting and curtailing freedom of speech. And I know that, not only from this legal brief, but because, having been a newspaper reporter and news broadcaster myself, I know it is true.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, it is almost impossible in many instances, to identify news items or the discussion of current events as being editorial or interpretative, and the result of such a requirement will be that the stations, loath to subject themselves to penalties for violating such provisions, will simply prohibit such broadcastssomething which will certainly not be in the public's interest. Whatever his medium of expression, it is axiomatic that a commentator or a reporter must protect the source of his news, and several States have passed legislation to this end.

By section 19, a new section, 333, is added to the act and provides that the substance of the Commission's network broadcasting regulations be incorporated into the Federal Communications Commission Act. It is submitted that the Commission has shown efficient, intelligent administration of the act and should be permitted to retain a

flexibility with respect to the issuance of chain broadcasting regulations so as to be in the best possible position to meet changing conditions in the public's interest.

A further comment is required with respect to the multiple-ownership provision of section 19. Under this provision the Commission would not have the authority to adopt any rules or regulations fixing the number of broadcast stations which may be licensed to any particular person, although the Commission would be authorized, when acting on individual applications, to make a fair and equitable distribution of radio broadcast facilities as between various applicants when such action can be taken consistent with the requirements of section 307 and the equities of existing licensees; in addition, no person shall own or control or be the licensee of broadcast stations in any single band which, in the aggregate, provide a primary service for more than 25 percent of the population of the United States. It is difficut to understand what is meant by "the equities of existing licensees" unless, in attempting to write a provision dealing with the problem of multiple ownership, the section purports to modify, in some way, the requirements of section 307.

If, by "the equities of existing licensees" some vestige of a vested property right is being given to existing licensees, the provision should definitely say that-and, if that is what is meant to be said, it is submitted that the Congress should not approve such provision.

With respect to the "25 percent provision," the Commission should not be forced to set a minimum or a maximum as to the number of stations which could be owned by any single individual, but should be free to consider a revision of its rules concerning such matter as circumstances may require in the public's interest.

Section 25 provides that the Commission shall make or promulgate no order, rule, or regulation of substance or procedure, the purpose or effect of which will or may be to effect a discrimination between persons based upon race, or religious or political affiliation, or kind of lawful occupation, or business association, and no rights, privileges, benefits, or licenses authorized by law shall be denied or withheld in whole or in part where adequate right or entitlement thereto is shown. This provision provides, among other things, that the Commission may not adopt a policy which would deny the newspapers the right to own radio stations. While we do not feel that the Commission should have the right to issue a rule or regulation which would automatically prevent newspapers from securing licenses to operate radio stations, nevertheless, it may be in the public's interest that in particular cases and under particular circumstances, the fact of newspaper ownership or control may be considered by the Commission in conjunction with all other factors in deciding whether to issue a license to a newspaper rather than some other applicant in the competition for a particular license. It is in the best interest of the public to prevent a monopoly of the chief instrument of mass communication. I merely close by saying, Senator White, that in view of all of the foregoing analysis of the substantive provisions of the White-Wolverton bill, Senate 1333, it is respectfully submitted by the Progressive Citizens of America that this bill should not be enacted into law.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I hope I have not been unduly insistent in hurrying you.

Miss ANTHONY. Well, I do feel hurried, but I appreciate your difficulties with all the witnesses you have on the last day.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Pirincin. You have a brief that you desire to file, Mr. Pirincin?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH PIRINCIN, REPRESENTING THE SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. PIRINCIN. Yes, sir, that has been filed, and has been made available to the press.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we can give you not in excess of 10 minutes for an oral statement.

Mr. PIRINCIN. My name is Joseph Pirincin, and I represent the Socialist Labor Party of America. Our formal statement has already been submitted.

I would first like to comment on section 315 (c) of the bill. I would like to quote first the definition of a "legally qualified candidate." Section 3.422 of the Commission's rules, adopted pursuant to the provisions set forth at the top of page 3 of our brief, defines a "legally qualified candidate" as follows:

A "legally qualified candidate" means any person who has publicly announced that he is a candidate for nomination by a convention of a political party, or for nomination or election in a primary, special, or general election, municipal, county, State or National, and who meets the qualifications prescribed by the applicable laws to hold the office for which he is a candidate so that he may be voted for by the electorate directly or by means of delegates or electors, and who (a) has qualified for a place on the ballot, or (b) is eligible under the applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his name on the ballot, or by other method, and (1) has been duly nominated by a political party, which is commonly known and regarded as such, or (2) makes a substantial showing that he is a bona fide candidate for nomination or office, as the case may be.

The proposed section 315 would completely nullify that, and from experience, the experience of an organization of 57 years' standing, an organization which has campaigned every day in the year during those years, election or no, keeping in mind the excessive signature requirements in many States, such as New York, within its requirements for signatures from every single county in the State, where in the last election we were kept off by an interpretation as to whether a "three" was a "five" or a "five" was a "three" as well as California, Ohio, and Illinois, it is clear that if this provision of the bill is enacted in these States and under those rules, no candidate of the Socialist Labor Party, duly nominated by the convention, duly supported by the people whose organization he represents, would be able to obtain time as a candidate for public office, because his name would not appear on the ballot.

There is no relief provided as to the discussion of public and political questions, such questions, for example, as the one recently discussed, the Taft-Hartley bill. Whether or not there would be any relief as to that is a question.

The fact is that the adoption of that provision might well have the result that candidates who are nominated but failed to qualify in States with prohibitive ballot requirements, would not be able to obtain radio time.

The Socialist Labor Party wants to express its opposition also to that portion of the bill providing that no licensee or group shall have radio service to more than 25 percent of the population.

We believe that the very likely working of the enactment of such a provision would be that radio would be cartelized; that within that there is possibility of the Nation being divided into four sections of 25 percent each, and that anyone desiring national coverage, instead of going to a single network, might and conceivably could be, compelled to engage four networks.

The Socialist Labor Party is in favor of the new provisions defining censorship by the Commission or by the licensees, which is a portion of the section on public and political questions, specifically the proposed section 330. And when we speak of censorship, we speak from experience.

We are particularly in favor of a very clear definition of what can be censored: The advocacy of the overthrow of the Government by force and violence.

Beng an organization that does advocate the abolition of the present form of government of the United States by legal and constitutional means, and having so advocted for 57 years, we have had repeated experience from coast to coast with radio stations, where the perfectly legal proposition of emphasizing article V of the Constitution of the United States, and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence was interpreted as unbroadcastable material because it proposed that the present form of government of the United States be changed.

Therefore, the Socialist Labor Party views favorably the proposal in bill S. 1333.

Finally, the Socialist Labor Party proposes for the serious consideration of this committee that the portion of the proposed section 330, on page 24 of the printed bill, beginning with line 7, be amplified, following the word "questions," and that the following be added: "Including the views of each political party of record."

The proposal in the bill that political and public questions be discussed in somewhat the manner in which political campaigns are conducted on the radio today is desirable, but in the discussion of the Taft-Hartley bill, the Socialist Labor Party has had this experience: All networks were approached. One of them said, “We have allotted 30 periods for the discussion of the Taft-Hartley bill. All views on this bill have been heard." That was not the case.

The Socialist Labor Party is a political party of record. Thirty periods on sustaining programs had been allotted for the discussion, and yet the distinct views, not previously expressed by any group or organization, which were held by the Socialist Labor Party, were not permitted on the air, because of the fact that there was no clear inter pretation.

It is hoped that the proposed two new sections contained in S. 1333 will be adopted.

I would like to conclude by reemphasizing that this committee seriously consider the effects of the provision requiring that candidates for public office will not be granted equal time unless they appear on the ballot. It will be a death blow to minority parties that face restrictive ballot requirements in six of the most important States in the United States.