Evening star., 1938-12-28

means of avoiding speeches that
1ncite religious and racial hatred.
Associations of editors often discuss
what they think is good or bad for
newspapers. They have at times
discussed whether crime news is q
help or hindrance to social progress.
They have discussed what to do
about news OF commercial sports and
the like.
So now, when the trade associa-
ton OF broadcaSters takes up what
TO do about speeches that promote
religious or racial hatreds, it doesn't
mean that radio has imposed legal
censorship. 1t means that each and
every radio station may do as it
pleases, but that customs will arise
among radio stations, just as they
do among newspapers, to avoid
ISSUES that tend to involve them in
unnecessary controversies and some
times in litigation.
Thus, in the law courts some in
terested individuals already have en-
oeavored to get rulings to the effect
that a race or religion can actually
be libeled, even though no particular
individual is named. Efforts to get
legislation passed in various States to
include such offenses under the laws
OF libel have been suggested.
In the meantime, radio stations,
like newspapers, do not like to spend
their time and energies answering
complaints and engaging in lawsuits.
and If some Of the radio stations,
acting individually, decide that some
addresses tend to abuse freedom of
speech, they will withhold them Just
ns do newspapers which exercise
their own judgment in what they
publish or omit.
The important thing from a legal
standpoint is that the National
Association Of Broadcasters does not
have any authority to promulgate
rules for its members and that its
recommendations can at best be only
advisory. Any tendency to conspire
together to prevent any particular
group from using the air Rould prob
ably cause the radio stations to run
safoul OF Federal or State statutes.
Yet back in the days of the World
War, general conspiracy OF silent
treatment was believed to have been
invoked by some of the press with
respect to the anti-war speeches of
the late Senator La Toilette of Wis
consin.
Senator Wheeler is right when he
says 1t is no cure to suppress
speeches like those of Father Cough
Nm even though one may disagree
With their doctrines. It was oliver
Wendell Holmes, the late Justice of
the Supreme Court Of the United
States, who defined freedom of
speech as freedom for the thought
we hate" The argument that it is
lar more dangerous to allow unlim-
ited speech on the air than in print
Is specious one. Father Coughlin's
comments will produce their own
reaction when they run counter to
the public's conception of what is or
u not in the public interest.
Radio stations, on the other hand,
DO not have the flexibility of news
papers. If a radio speech contains
an attack on race or group, it is
not easy to have ready for imme-
date reply an answer which sets
forth the other side. Whereas news
papers have several hours, as a rule.
to ferret out somebody to take the
other side of debated point which
concerns so delicate a matter as race
81. religious prejudice. Broadcasting
stations will be acting within their
rights In holding up the delivery of
any speech Of controversial nature
until they are able to obtain a
speaker to present the other side.
But to suppress any important
speech when 1t does not libel any,
body and is plainly within the law
will tend to bring on more and more
difficulties for the radio industry.
correct though the stations be in
their use of the discretionary right
Of publishing or omission which is
conceded to newspapers.
The fact that radio stations get
their licenses from the Government
Is often cited as reason for urging
Federal Government supervision of
what is or is not contained in radio
programs There is, however, no
basis in constitutional law for the
assumption of such a power. The
Federal Governments power to issue
licenses relates solely to the me-