Lapas attēli

Thus the legitimate interests of existing stations would be protected without imposing the substantial expense of legal and engineering fees upon new applicants by protests filed by those who wish to protect their selfish interests by requiring possible competitors to go through time-consuming hearings. The proposed section would conflict with the very carefully designed legislation by the Congress to prohibit existing licensees from securing a vested property right in their license and to be insulated against competition.

Section 13 provides, in part, that the Commission in approving or disapproving transfer applications shall merely make a finding that the proposed transferee possesses the qualifications required of an original licensee.

Presently section 310 (b) provides that a license can be transferred if the Commission “shall decide that said transfer is in the public interest” after securing full information. There is no reason why different standards should be used in determining the issuance of an original license, as contrasted with the transfer of such license. In each case the test should be the public interest.

The Commission presently operates under a procedure which requires that when an application for transfer is filed with the Commission, an advertisement must be published in the newspapers of the community in which the station operates, stating that the existing licensee wishes to transfer his license and setting forth the terms and conditions of the sale.. Further, the advertisement states that any person desiring to secure the facilities on these terms may do SO. If applications are received, the Commission then determines, on the basis of who is best qualified to serve the public interest, whether the proposed transferee or anyone else who has applied shall be given the right to enter into a contract with the licensee. The licensee does not have to consummate a deal with such person. There is no possible harm done under the present procedure of the Federal Communications Commission since the existing licensee sets the terms and conditions under which he will sell and does not have to consummate a sale with any other person if he does not wish to do so.

The provisions of section 15 effect substantial changes in section 315 of the Federal Communications Commission Act concerning political broadcasts during political campaigns.

The act is amended so as to require equal opportunities to candidates, their authorized spokesmen, organized political parties, and any person who may wish to support or oppose any public measure to be voted upon as such, in a referendum, initiative, recall, or other form of election. Further, neither the licensee nor the Commission shall have any censorship power over the material broadcast under the provisions of section 15, and licensees shall not be liable for any libel, slander, invasion of right or privacy or any similar liability imposed by the 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.

Now, the part we are really interested in comes right here. In addition to the foregoing, subsection (c) of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

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' name appear on the ballot and whose duly chosen responsible officers designate a person to use such facilities.

Now, I can't quite agree, of course, with the last witness when he says that that does not affect really a group such as the League of Women Voters, and so forth. However, I want to get on with our brief, so I shall not take up that point.

In many instances support for or opposition to a candidate for public office and the things that he stands for will come from individuals or groups of individuals who are not legally qualified candidates for the same office or a person designated by such candidate or a regularly organized political party whose candidate's or candidates' names appear on the ballot but nevertheless are citizens of the United States with a constitutional right to talk and to be heard by their fellow countrymen, so that their views concerning the candidate may be assayed by the citizenry in deciding for whom they shall vote. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Stromberg v. California (283 U. S. 359, 51 S. Ct. 532, 1931), held:

The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that Government may be responsive to the will of the people

is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.

Whatever the purpose of subsection (c) may be, its effect will be to harm our democratic system, which rests, in large measure, upon the rights of individuals or minority groups to present their ideas and their viewpoints to the rest of us.

The amendment would prohibit such groups as the chamber of commerce, bar associations, the League of Women Voters, or others who, although they wish to express themselves either for or against a candidate, cannot have themselves designated in writing as a spokesman of the candidate for public office. There is also the danger that the subsection could be so interpreted as to prohibit news analysts or commentator sfrom speaking to the public on the issues of the day during a political campaign.

In addition to the serious curtailment of civil liberties inherent in subsection (c), a needless and harmful limitation on political campaigning is contained in subsection (e), wherein it is provided that a station shall not permit the making of any political broadcasts or the discussion of any question by or on behalf of any political candidate or party for a period beginning 24 hours prior to and extending throughout the day on which an election is to be held.

As a practical matter, it is difficult to see what this prohibition will do unless it is hoped that the 24 hours prior to election will be spent by everyone in solitary, considering the issues and candidates; of course, newspapers should not be sold during such period either if such a result is to be obtained.

Since broadcasting is probably an unequaled medium for the dissemination of news, information, and opinion, and for the discussion of public issues, as little limitation as possible should be placed on its ability to play such role.

Section 16, the new section, would divide the present section 326 into two parts. Subsection (a) would provide that the Commission does not have the power to regulate the business of any licensee unless other


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

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 thắt no station shall be required to broadcast any material which might subject the licensee to liability for damages or to penalty

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

or users.

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 bave 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 there from of any material necessary to conform the same to the requirements of this section.

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]


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 protectionthat is, freedom of the pressit 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

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 distri. bution 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 publie 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.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »