Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-11-10
nov10d1t
believe anyone will wish to minimize
his part in American life.
Freedom for the Listener

Freedom for the Listener
If we did absorb the upper amateur
band from $50 to 200 meters it would
not even solve the immediate diff
culties. All these things bring US
face to face with the problem which
we have all along dreaded and for
which we have hoped the develope-
ment of the art might give us a
solution. But that appears to be Far
off, and we must now decide the
issue of whether we shall have more
stations in conflicting localities until
new discoveries in the art solve the
problem.
We hear a great deal about the
freedom of the air. But there are
two parties to freedom of the air, and
to freedom of speech for that matter.
There is the speech maker and the
listener. Certainly in radio I be-
lieve in freedom for the listener. He
has much less option upon what he
can reject, for the other fellow is
occupying his receiving set. The
listeners only option is to abandon
his right to use his receiver. Free
dom cannot mean a license to every
person or corporation who wishes
to broadcast his name or his wares
and thus monopolize the listeners
set
We do not get much freedom of
speech if so people speak at the
same place at the same time, nor
is there any freedom in a right to
come into my sitting room to make
a speech whether / like 1t or not
So far as opportunity goes to ex-
plain ones views upon questions of
controversy, political, religious or
social. 1t. would seem that SIS indie
pendent stations, many competing in
each locality, might give ample
opportunity for great latitude in
remarks. And in any event, without
trying out all this question, we can
surely agree that no one can raise
cry of deprivation of free speech
if he is compelled to prove that there
Is something more than naked COM
mercial selfishness in his purpose.
The ether is a public medium, and
its use must be for public benefit.
The use of a radio channel is justi-
fed only If there is public benefit.
The dominant element for consider
alton in the radio field is and always
will be, the great body of the listen
ing public, millions in numbers,
countrywide In distribution. There
the broadcaster and the listener, nor
would I attempt to array one against
the other. Their interests are
mutual, for without the one the
other could not exist.
The greatest public interest must
be the deciding factor. 1 presume
that few will dissent as to the cor
rectness of this principle, for all will
agree that public good must over
balance private desire. But it's
acceptance leads to important and
far reaching practical effects, as to
which there may not be the same
humanity. but from which, never
theless. there is no logical escape.
We simply must say that conditions
absolutely preclude increasing the
total number of stations in congested
areas. 1t Is condition not an
emotion. But this implies a deter
mination of who shall occupy these
channels in what manner, and under
what test.
I can see no alternative to abandon
ment of the present system. which
gives the broadcasting privilege to
everyone who can raise the funds
necessary to erect station, irres-
pective of his motive, the service
he proposes to render, or the number
Of others already serving his COM
munity. Moreover, we should not
freeze the present users of wave
lengths permanently in their favored
positions irrespective of their service.
That would confer a monopoly of a
channel in the air, and deprive us
of public control over it. 1t would
DESTROY the public assurance that
1t will be used for public benefit
There are, indeed, many difficult
issues to be solved, but we have to
face them just the same.
1t seems to me we have in this
development of governmental re-
lations, two distinct problems. First |
is a question of traffic control. This
must be a federal responsibility. |
From an interference point of view,
every word broadcast is an inter
state word. X x
The second question Is the deter