or profane language and the making of any false accusation or charge. Insofar as obscenity, indecency, or profanity are concerned, there is, of course, no room for doubt. Such material is prohibited by the present act in section 326 and such prohibition should certainly remain. However, the inclusion of a prohibition against the making of any false accusation or charge does not seem to me to be the proper approach to this problem. To make it a crime would place a licensee in jeopardy to such an extent that he would have to be unduly cautious in permitting the use of his facilities, particularly for discussions of controversial questions, or political questions, or any public questions. Severe as the penalty is, the crime is indefinitely described in the bill merely as a "false accusation or charge."

It might be desirable to have a uniform standard of civil liability for damages in connection with defamation by radio. However, the matter of criminal prosecution ought to be left to local enforcement, in my opinion, and thereby avoid the possibility that Federal authorities might inject themselves, to punitive ends, into local matters and sectional disagreements. For instance, the Attorney General of the United States could very well move into a local situation under such a provision, we believe, on a radio question, which might be extremely unfortunate, with all due respect to the Attorney General.

I have no comments, Mr. Chairman, on the appeal or procedure provisions, as I believe they have been adequately covered by Mr. Petty, the counsel for the National Association of Broadcasters.

I think my statement will speak for itself on the other provisions. Senator CAPEHART. Thank you very much.

Mr. Woods. Thank you, sir.

Senator CAPEHART. Have you any questions, Senator Johnson? Senator JOHNSON. No questions.

Senator CAPEHART. Well, it is almost lunch time, but I guess we had better go on.

I understand there is only one person here who would like to be heard before we recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow, and that is Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lynch is the manager of WCFL, in Chicago, and he is also the financial secretary of the Chicago Federation of Labor. Mr. Lynch.

STATEMENT OF MAURICE LYNCH, MANAGER, WCFL, AND FINANCIAL SECRETARY, CHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. LYNCH. That is correct, Senator.

Senator CAPEHART. I am starting off this new system here of trying to describe in great detail who each witness is, over this microphone. You may proceed, Mr. Lynch, in your own way.

Mr. LYNCH. This statement which I am about to make is a slight abbreviation of the mimeographed statement which we have placed in the hands of your committee.

My comments are only in connection with certain portions of the proposed bill, which I regard as impractical; other portions which should be made more explanatory. I also recommend some additions to the bill.

Section 315, political campaigns, subparagraph (3), paragraph (c), cannot, in my opinion, be applied to primary elections, for obvious

reasons. The party has not the authority to designate the allotment of radio time to the party candidates. What about candidates whose names do not appear on the ballot being prohibited by State laws,. but are candidates of their party? Such candidates can be voted for only by write-in.

Paragraph (f) of this section prohibits censorship by the licensee or the Federal Communications Commission of any material to be broadcast, but section 334 prohibits obscene, indecent, or profane language or to knowingly make or publish any false accusations against any person by radio communications.

As to section 326, regarding the provision giving the Commission authority in considering renewals of licenses to determine whether or not the licensee has operated in the public interest, I would suggest that the Commission would immediately inform the licensee of any violation, either by commission or omission, and ask for an explanation and correction of the offensive practices. It seems rather severe to deprive a licensee of his opportunity to make a livelihood and his investment, while he may have had no intention of wrongdoing.

Section 330 also prohibits censorship of broadcast material; but it also provides that 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, so as to permit an examination thereof, and to delete therefrom any material, necessary to conform to the requirements of this section. This looks like censorship, and the two provisions seem irreconcilable.

What are the "political or public questions" otherwise than as provided for in section 315? Evidently communism would be one; because the section provides

That no licensee 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.

Must the Communists and their related organizations actually state that they will, if they can, overthrow the form of Government of the United States by force or/and violence, before the licensee can claim the right to refuse them the use of his facilities?

There are those who claim that the right to overthrow or abolish the form of Government of the United States is provided for in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Right, but there is no such provision in the United States Constitution or the Bill of rights. There are, of course, provisions to amend it, but not to overthrow or abolish it. There is a provision in the Declaration of Independence that peoples have the right to change their form of government or to abolish it; but that was written years before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It was written when a foreign power governed the American Colonies.

The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was achieved at Yorktown in 1781, and confirmed in Paris in 1783, and subversive elements should not be allowed or aided in any manner to nullify the great accomplishments for which so much sacrifice was made to achieve.. Radio facilities should be denied them in trying to promote their nefarious designs.

A provision should be added to the bill to cover cases where an organization, not a duly organized established political party, pur

t time to make changes or corrections, and to delete profane, . or indecent language.

graph (b), section 326, proposes:

mission shall have no power to censor, alter, or in any manner affect ol the substance of any material to be broadcast by any radio broadcast licensed pursuant to this Act, and no regulation or condition shall be ated or imposed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of the licensee of any such station to determine, subject to the limitathis Act, the character and source of the material to be broadcast: , that nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit the authority Commission in its consideration of applications for renewal of licenses mine whether or not the licensee has operated in the public interest.

ld say it would be better if the Commission would immediately the licensee of any violation either by commission or omission k for an explanation and correct its practices, rather than let ntil the term of the license is about to expire.

licensee might be ignorant of any violations, and it would be Severe to punish him by depriving him of his opportunity for hood and his investment, while perhaps not being willfully of any violations of the law or regulations.

on 330 proposes:

nd if a radio broadcast station is used for the presentation of political e questions otherwise than as provided for in section 315 hereof, it shall uty of the licensee of any such station to afford equal opportunities for entation of different views on such questions.

rovides, among other things, that neither the licensee nor the ssion shall have the power to censor, alter, or in any manner or control the substance of any program material. It also

les:

licensee shall be required to permit the broadcasting of any material dvocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force

ice.

covides further:

→ licensee shall be required to broadcast any material which might subject see to liability for damages or to penalty or forfeiture under any local, Federal law or regulation.

Iso provides that the licensee shall have the right to demand ceive a complete and accurate copy of the material to be broadsufficient time in advance of its intended use, to permit an nation thereof and the deletion therefrom of any material neceso conform the same to the requirements of this section.

section 330 seems vague and contradictory. What are the ical or public" questions other than those provided for in sec315? Would communism be one of them? If so, must the ee give time to the Communists or any of their related organizasuch as the fellow travelers and underground workers? ist they, the Communists and so forth, actually say they will if can overthrow the form of Government of the United States e the licensee can claim the right to refuse them the use of his > facilities? There are those who claim that the right to overor abolish the form of Government of the United States is ided for in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights; nere is no such provision in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

65141-47-19

chases time on a radio station, and the commentator talks on various current issues. During preelection campaigns, the commentator discusses opposing candidates and endorses several of them, not necessarily all of the same political party. Cases like this are not covered in section 315 and it is extremely difficult in those cases, to comply with the letter of the law regarding "equal opportunities."

Section 334, already referred to, is proper, but who is to be held responsible? Do its provisions apply to sections 315, 326, 330, 331, and 332? An addition should be made to this section. That the licensee shall not be held liable for any objectionable language or false statements, interpolated, ad libbed, by a speaker, and which does not appear in the script submitted to the licensee.

A provision should also be included, that in all cases the licensee should be furnished an accurate copy of all proposed talks by all speakers on any or all subjects, 24 or 48 hours in advance of the time set: 48 hours would be preferable.

The proposed changes in and additions to section 315 and other related sections need considerable scrutiny and clarification. Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides for "equal opportunities" for duly qualified candidates for political office only, with no censorship. The proposed changes and additions contained in H. R. 3595 and S. 1333 give the same rights and privileges to representatives of candidates and to regularly organized political parties in a political campaign; also to both sides in any public measures to be voted upon. Paragraph (c), section 315, proposes that—

No licensee shall, during a political campaign permit the use of the facilities of a broadcast station for or against any candidate for any public office except (1) by a legally qualified candidate for the same office; or (2) by a person designated, in writing, by such candidate; or (3) by a regularly organized political party whose candidate's or candidates' names appear on the ballot and whose duly chosen responsible officers designate a person to use such facilities.

Subparagraph (3) cannot apply in primary elections.

What about persons whose names do not appear on the ballot being prohibited by law, as in some States, but they are the candidates of their party? I refer to the Communist Party candidates particularly. In some States write-ins are legalized. This is a point that should be clarified so that the licensee can definitely determine the status of such candidates.

Paragraph (f), section 315, proposes:

Neither the licensee nor the Commission shall have power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section: Provided, That licensees shall not be held liable for any libel, slander, invasion of rights of privacy, or any similar liability imposed by any State, Federal or Territorial or local law for any statement made in any broadcast under the provisions of this section, except as to statements made by the licensee or persons under his control.

This last sentence seems superfluous as the licensee as such is prohibited from making any statements under the provisions of this section.

Is the licensee fully protected by paragraph (f) from criminal or civil liability in States where laws are in force prohibiting libel and slander from being broadcast over the radio?

I would suggest that copies of all talks should be in the hands of the radio station at least 24 hours before the time set for the broadcast 48 hours would be more preferable-so as to give the speaker