Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

I would like to throw in a slightly different angle of approach to our basic question here. Without discounting for a moment the very valuable material we have before us, I want to inquire as to the basic purpose of freedom of speech? George Washington urged the widest diffusion of knowledge upon the stated theory that a well-informed electorate was the greatest security for a democratic nation. Walt Whitman once cried, "Not merely for tongues that were free to speak, but for ears that were free to listen." And, only a few years ago, a famous Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission called for worldwide freedom to listen. I need not identify that man further. [Laughter.]

What then, is the function to be served by this basic purpose? Milton urged it. So long as truth was in the battle, it would always prevail. Well, I don't know. I doubt it. But, I do assert that that is the thesis upon which we must pin our faith.

But, getting back to the purpose, I don't think it is merely that I or you or any of the gentlemen here will be able to get some measure of mental catharsis by getting up and airing his vews or printing them in the newspapers. I think the purpose is something other than that, for there can be no democracy where people lack the capacity for self-government.

The real purpose, I submit, is that the electorate shall be fully informed and when the people of this country are fully informed by fair reporting, and by both sides of controversial issues, then we have there the guarantee of the preservation of all of our liberties. And so long as we do have that type of citizenry, we have a guarantee upon which we can rely. We have a right to be wrong. have a right to assert the wrong ideas, even to be mistaken in your facts. theory is, there will be the corrective force of the interplay, the diverse ideas in the market place of thought. That was Brandeis' theory and I offer it to you.

You
Our

Now, here is where radio has its greatest opportunity. Whether or not it has a legal duty, it has a duty to serve its listeners and not to use the transmitter as the mouthpiece of a single individual; to give the diverse points of view, to give fair reporting, to give both sides of controversial issues.

I think Mr. Knight touched upon a very useful thought when he in effect mentioned the duty of the newspapers. Again, that is not a legal duty which we can force upon Mr. Knight or upon Colonel McCormick, but it is the duty which he recognizes to the people. And the very function of self-examination, critical selfexamination, is a very useful vehicle.

Also, as he intimated, the Government is not the only source of restraint in this field. With the alertness which we have and the eternal vigilance we have for our constitutional principles in terms of encroachment from the governmental side, it is well that radio and the press and the public be aware of the coercive or possibly coercive influences from other sources. Economic restraint can be as harmful to the people as governmentl restraints, even through there is no method of attacking them in the courts; and that is where the press and the radio, of course, must stand up and maintain with all vigor, the independence that is so important to all of us.

I though George Denny's Town Hall Meeting over in Akron, the other night, which Mr. Knight referred to, a splendid example of the functioning of our system of free speech by radio. That is, I won't say the best, but certainly one of our good programs, where both sides of the controversial issues are actively debated and the people themselves take part in the expression of ideas. It is interesting to note that a day or two thereafter, the single newspaper in Akron wrote a twocolumn editorial examining itself and its policies in the light of the public expressions at that Town Hall Meeting. That was a very wholesome reaction.

But, as has been suggested here, the real duty of all of us is toward the people upon whom we must rely to maintain the system we all revere. [Applause.] Chairman KOBAK. Thank you, Larry. I might add that Mr. Fly is an attorney in New York and he has offices and occasionally can take on new clients. I think he is entitled to a commercial for coming out here and doing a free-lance job. Also, all of that was on a card-one card-this size. I don't know how he does it. I thought he was writing out a whole speech and it was all just one card. Did you go to Harvard Law School? There was some reference to that this noon, and that is the reason I asked. I have a vice president and general manager who shall be nameless, who also went to Harvard Law School and he can go on and on, worse than men from Georgia Tech.

How about some questions from the audience? And, the audience includes the people up here.

QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE. Mr. Knight, just a moment ago you stated that you would fight for your right to express yourself editorially in your newspapers.

Why will you not also fight for your right to express yourself editorially through the medium of facsimile broadcasting? Why do you say you will abandon the venture if not given that right?

Mr. KNIGHT. I think you made a good point. After I sat down I wondered why I hadn't said I would first fight for the right to express ourselves freely, and if unsuccessful, I would abandon the project. I think I assumed that because facsimile would unquestionably be under the supervision of the same agency that regulates all broadcasting in the country, we would be subject to some degree of control. You made an excellent point and it is something I should have thought of at first.

Chairman KOBAK. Thank you, sir. Any other questions?

Mr. EMORY (radio station WITH, Baltimore). I'd like to direct a question to Mr. Willard. He said in his talk that if the founding fathers had known the development of communications, they probably would have protected radio and every other form in the Bill of Rights. Under the present set-up they are not protected, and all three speakers seem to agree that all forms of communications should be given full freedom.

What specific steps would you suggest be taken that this be granted or guaranteed?

Mr. WILLARD. I think, Mr. Emory, you have misinterpreted me just a little bit. I quoted Frank Tripp all the way from the press to the Dow-Jones ticker to indicate how it might be spelled out now. As a matter of fact, the founding fathers did protect the then known means of communication of free speech, and indeed, the courts have consistently held that radio is protected too.

In fact, the Congress wrote into the Communications Act a prohibition against censorship on the part of the members of the Federal Communications Commission.

I did not say, I believe if you will reread my speech-that the present forms were not protected.

Does that answer your question or doesn't it?

Mr. EMORY. Not exactly. We all agree that the press has entire freedom under present conditions.

Mr. WILLARD. That's right.

Mr. EMORY. I believe your speech indicated that radio did not have entire freedom from any form of censorship.

Mr. WILLARD. It does not have the freedom the press has. That's my opinion. Mr. EMORY. And also that the motion-picture industry does not have entire freedom of expression?

Mr. WILLARD. That's correct.

Mr. EMORY. All three of you agree that all three means should have 100 percent freedom?

Mr. WILLARD. That's right.

Mr. EMORY. My question is "What specific steps could be taken to give all three the same freedom that the press has?"

Mr. WILLARD. There are only two steps that can be taken, Mr. Emory. The first, of course, is to go to the Congress and obtain proper laws that will fully protect those freedoms. The second is to get controversial issues involving our freedoms into court to determine finally what the application of them to freedom of speech via radio, motion pictures, and so forth-really means. Such determination by the Supreme Court of the United States would then become the law of the land.

Some of these issues have been in the courts and have been determined in accordance with the Constitution but some of them have been interpreted by administrative agencies and leave us something less than complete freedom. Does that answer your question?

Mr. EMORY. Yes, sir.

Chairman KOBAK. Thank you.

Any other questions? It's rather peaceful. I think that next year, when you're planning one of these things, you want to get people up here with opposite beliefs, and turn them loose and let them all see the problem and the job to be done.

Well, I would like to suggest to the NAB that if it is in line with your policies (and I'm just a dues-paying member), you take that editorial in the Akron Beacon Journal (which is published by a man named Knight) and put it in your weekly bulletin. You may have to explain what it is all about, and the reason for it, but I read the editorial, and I had the same feeling about it. I think everybody ought to read it and then write an editorial about themselves and

their own job and their own businesses, because a little self-study will go a long way to doing a better job. It is the first time in years that I recall a newspaper ever having written an editorial of that nature, and the editor should be congratulated.

I don't know whether you wrote it [looking at Knight] but it's a good job. [Laughter.]

There is a gentleman in the room-I mean there are a lot of them-[laughter] that I would like to call upon, since you're all so happy and peaceful, and draw into this thing. It is not controversial from his standpoint, as he has been living and having a little experience in the country where they didn't know much about freedom of the press and radio and movies. I am wondering if our good friend Ken Dyke wouldn't just like to stand up here and see how it feels to be back in America and be able to say what he pleases. Ken? [Applause.]

Mr. Dyke is vice president, National Broadcasting Co.

DYKE TELLS OF PROBLEMS IN JAPAN

Mr. KEN DYKE (vice president, NBC). That, Mr. Kobak, as usual, is one of your exaggerations. I am standing here as the representative of the Radio Corp. of Japan, with 45 stations, 3 networks, and at present, Mr. Kobak, no United States network affiliation. [Laughter.]

I am greatly tempted to say that this is where I came in. I haven't been at a gathering like this in about 5 years. Mr. Fly is here, the members of the Commission are here, and that seems to be a fine change for the better, because I find that as a member of NBC I can sit very comfortably and socially next to a Commissioner and have a very enjoyable dinner.

One thing I would like to say and suggest-after my dinner conversation with a member of the FCC, and if I am not imposing on his remarks-is that I think it might be a good thing if the FCC practiced more effective public relations. I think perhaps that many of the things that they have said and published-and some of the interpretations placed upon them-do not entirely mean what a good many of us sometimes are inclined to believe. I hope that is so. If that is so, then I recommend that the FCC indulge in a little more freedom of speech in order that they may not be unfairly accused of advocating something that seems to be the arresting idea behind the entire discussion tonight.

I want to tell you a couple of stories.

I went through the reverse English in Japan, of participating in the freeing of those people from a complete control of their freedoms. And when I say "complete," I mean "complete." You gentlemen tonight have been talking about control of radio, control of press, and control of motion pictures; but in Japan there were other methods of mass communication which the Japanese war lords considered equally important and which they equally controlled, and those werc the media of education and of religion. Therefore, at the end of the war you saw the result of 72,000,000 people who-not for 5 years and not for 10 years, but for substantially 60 years-had been under a complete government domination and control.

I think Mr. Fly's point is a good one, at least as it was exemplified in Japan, that we must watch all of the influences in this country equally carefully that may impede or may threaten our freedom of speech.

In Japan the first directive that General MacArthur issued was his freedom of speech directive-freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of all the other activities that were necessary to democratize the Japanese. What happened was a very interesting phenomenon.

Seventy-two million Japanese did not know what to do with these freedoms because they had not had them in a good many years. It finally became such a problem that General MacArthur called some of us in and said, "How are we going to demonstrate to the Japanese that they actually have freedom of speech, that there are no longer thousands of 'thought police' lurking around the doors?" "Thought police" were not in uniform and they might very well be your second cousin or your maidservant.

A private first class, who used to work for a small radio station in the Middle West, after we had talked over the problem said, "Do you remember the program of the 'man on the street'? I believe if we show the Japanese that they have freedom to express themselves, perhaps this will unlock the floodgate of free speech."

And that is exactly what happened. The old traditional radio man-on-thestreet type of program was developed, Japanese style. Sound trucks went out

to street corners in Japan, and Japanese were asked their opinions on the most provocative of all subjects, "What do you think of the Emperor?"

For 3 weeks we couldn't even get a recording because you couldn't find a Japanese who would talk because they suspected that the recording people were "thought police." The idea finally clicked and the program went on the air.

In little towns in Japan-and, incidentally, in Japan radio set ownership is down to about 25 percent of the families-50 and 60 Japanese would huddle in one little house, sitting on the floor around a small inadequate radio set, listening with absolute astonishment to other Japanese expressing opinions against the "Tenno" or the emperor system. Inside of 20 weeks the truth spread by word of mouth across that country, that freedom of speech had actually come back to Japan.

No amount of writing, no amount of newspaper editorials, could have done that job. It took voices, people, talking again freely to prove to Japan that General MacArthur and the Allied Powers meant what they said.

I submit that for your consideration and thought.

There is only one other thought I have. During the control of radio and all other media in Japan, the Japanese radio lost 50 percent of its normal audience in the period of the last 3 years of the war because the people themselves would not stand for propaganda broadcasts carried to the extremes that the war lords employed. They stopped listening. So there is always that equalizing influence on radio which is present in any country, be it Japan or the United States. can't make people listen to what they don't care to hear.

You

I find upon returning after 5 years that everybody is complaining. You don't have any meat, no food, the housing situation is terrible, and now I find that you have no freedom of speech. [Laughter.] You've got so much compared to what anybody else has in the world, that it just isn't funny. We're the most fortunate people in the world. All the more reason why we must think and plan to preserve that freedom.

It seems to me the real responsibility for freedom of speech, as far as radio is concerned, lies not so much in the hands of the Commission, or in the hands of the networks, but squarely in the hands of the people who really are the controlling factors in radio, and that is the station operator and the station owner. If through your operation you demonstrate that radio makes as great a contribution along the lines of free speech and along the lines of giving the people the information they need and want, as it has already proved to be a great advertising medium and a great entertainment medium, then radio indeed will have matured, and I believe that day is not far off.

Chairman KOBAK. Thank you Ken.

set-up, are they?

Our two end men aren't so bad in this

It's getting late. I have just a few remarks to make and then I will ask Judge Miller to say something, because I think he has been getting a little itchy. He asked me to call on him. He is only the president of this association.

I was sitting here thinking and blinking in these bright television lights. Here we have an NAB convention and we invite the FCC Commissioners and members of the FCC family; there are about 30 or 40 of them all over the place, and believe me we are delighted that they are here.

I think the FCC ought to have a convention [laughter] and invite us to make a few speeches. Are we in, Charlies? Good. I think it might be very healthy, and I am sure after we attend your convention we will get some good ideas on how to make the next one a lot better.

Justin, may I call on you? I think you are troubled about something. You were fidgety, and unless there are any more questions, then, I will close the meeting. [Applause.]

JUDGE MILLER CLARIFIES ISSUE

President MILLER. I would like to answer one question that was asked. The question was this: "Assuming that radio broadcasting does not have the same protection as far as freedom of speech is concerned as the other media, what should you do to correct it?"

If it is true that it does not have the same protection in the Constitution, the only way to protect it would be to amend the Constitution, in terms.

The point I have been trying to make all around the country, and the reason why I have been using these large words and terms, and so on, to point my argument, is to get one issue made clear. My contention is that the Constitution does protect radio broadcasting just as much as any other media.

I am going to try to explain to you now, largely a lay group, a legal proposition which would be taught in a course on constitutional law if, for example, Larry Fly were giving a course at Harvard.

When the Constitution was made, the language of the makers, naturally, was language expressive of what was in existence at that time. When the Constitution provided that Congress should have power to regulate commerce between the States, it meant the kind of commerce which then existed between the States, which was horse and wagon or cart or carrying on your back, or whatever method of transportation was then available.

As time went on, the question became one of importance, whether that provision of the Constitution was large enough to cover new methods of transportation not then known to the Constitution makers. So when the railroad came along the question was, "Is the commerce clause big enough to cover that?" And the decision of the Supreme Court was, “Yes.”

When other methods of transportation came along, the meaning of the constitutional provision was expanded, similarly. So it wasn't long before it became a generally accepted proposition of constitutional interpretation that the language of the Constitution was broad enough to cover new concepts, new methods, entirely unknown to the Constitution makers except as they came within the general terms of the Constitution. Interstate commerce became a term of wider meaning as new methods of commerce developed.

That is the constitutional power under which Congress created the Communications Commission. It was under its powers to regulate commerce between the States that it passed a law and created a Commission which should have power to regulate the transmission of these signals over the channels of the air, as we call them a method of commerce entirely unknown to the Constitution makers, with the possible exception of the imagination of Benjamin Franklin who had begun to experiment with electricity.

No one questions that the Constitution is broad enough to cover that method of transportation. Consequently, no one would now say it is necessary, in order to have a Communications Commission, to amend the Constitution and say, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce between the States" and then specify horse and wagon, automobile, trains, airplanes, and radio communication. Do you get my point?

I make it particularly because that is the power under which Congress operated to create and empower the Federal Communications Commission. There is no mystery about this. Some of the folks who have been trying to talk about the subject without knowing anything at all about it, and talking about the "scarcity theory" and all the rest of that stuff, are completely overlooking the fact that Congress was acting under the commerce clause, as we call it, and that in it is found the only power the Commission has, the only power that Congress exercised in enacting the Communications Act.

Now, when Congress passed that law it considered-as it was required to dothe limitation of the first amendment. The first amendment, of course, limits the commerce clause. The commerce clause is part of the main body of the Constitution. The first amendment is an amendment to this main body and limits it. Any power Congress has under the commerce clause is limited by the first amendment, namely, that it shall pass no law abridging the right of freedom of speech.

Congress recognized that limitation, and when it created the Commission and wrote the Communications Act, it wrote into it the express provision that the Communications Commission should be limited by the provisions of the first amendment. It didn't say it in those terms. It used the word "censorship," and it used another expression which is not usually mentioned. It went on, in section 326, 66 to say, * * no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication." There it used the language of the Constitution.

Can anyone have any doubt what Congress meant when it said "freedom of speech" there? Congress wasn't talking about freedom of speech from a platform, or freedom of speech in the press. It was talking about freedom of speech by radio communication, and there wouldn't be any sense in putting it in the act unless it did have that meaning.

As I say, Congress created this Commission and gave it power and limited it, expressly, as Congress knew that it was limited, under this provision of the Constitution. In other words, Congress did here exactly what the courts had been doing in interpreting the commerce clause. It said, in effect: "This language

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »