Evening star., 1939-05-25

ton is contrary to what President
Roosevelt himself promised on May
in public statement in which he
limited the function of Government
as to radio merely ito such controls
OF operation as are necessary to pre-
vent complete confusion on the air"
He then added significantly:
In all other respects the radio is
as free as the press"
Mr.. Roosevelt in his brief COM
ment repeated what the Supreme
Court of the United States has said.
When the scope of Federal regula-
ton of radio came before it, Chief
Justice Hughes made it clear in a
unanimous decision that the Gov
ernment's power over radio related
to the ALLEGATION of facilities. Con-
gress. moreover, does not recognize
the right of the Federal Communi-
cations Commission to deal with the
content of radio programs, unless, of
course, they run counter to the GUS
tomary laws of libel or the dissent
nation of obscene or fraudulent
matter.
If now, however, governmental
commission may say what is or is
not international good will, censor
ship in fact exists. For there are
differences of opinion as to what
constitutes good will. During the
recent civil war in Spain, had the
same rule been operative, one fac
ton in America might have insisted
that radio broadcasts from New
York designed to reach the Spanish
people were not good will" and
another might have insisted that
the broadcaSts were a splendid moral
support.
Established Precedents.
The power of the Federal Gov
ernment to limit the freedom of
speech or of the press has a back
ground of established precedents,
but it is quite possible that if radio
opens up now a new avenue of gov
ernmental regulation. the Presi-
dents public comment of May 9
may come to mean that in all re-
spects the press is just as free as
radio.
For it is short step for the Fed
eral Government to contend that,
because newspapers carry second
class mail, they can be regulated as
to their content. The Supreme
Court has always rejected such an
Interpretation, but supposing the
Post Office Department, acting on
request from some other Govern
ment department, should say that
all editorials or printed articles
which do not tend to promote good
will should be prohibited from pub
lication in newspapers or magazines
exported to foreign countries?
Would that not be on all fours, so
far as governmental power is con-
cerned, with the latest action of the
Federal Communications Commis-
sion?
Face Loss of Licenses.
The commission has made it clear
In its public announcement that ra-
dio stations which do not obey the
order will possibly lose their licenses.
So also, an arbitrary government
could say that all newspapers which
do not conform to the Governments
ideas of what constitutes goodwill
in published articles shall lose Sec
ond-class mail privileges.
Whatever concerns the regulation
OF the contents of radio programs
concerns equally the contents of
newspapers. 1t can hardly be said
that radio is different art. For
today broadcasting stations are used
to transmit by radio the copies of
what are known as facsimile news
papers. Likewise, television comes
through radio broadcasting stations,
and if the Federal Communications
Commission obtains the right to
censor what is said in international
programs by threatening to discon-
tinue license, it can do so with
respect to television, too This
means that speakers can be kept
from public appearances in any
form of radio facilities if their ideas
of good will do not correspond to
those of the Government censors in
Washington.
May Attract Attention.
1t would have been a simple mat
ter for the Communications Com
mission to have transmitted, as a
matter of patriotism, any request
from the Department of State to
radio stations broadcasting interna-
tional programs. In the period of
the World War the entire American
press operated on that very kind of
an informal voluntary basis. The
same end would have been obtained
by asking and not ordering radio
stations or threatening them with
loss of licenses
AS it is, the case is one which
doubtless will attract the attention
Of the American Civil Liberties
Committee, which has done yeoman
work in preventing reactionary in
fluences from cutting down the op-
portunities of liberal expression
identified with freedom of speech in
America. An injunction against the