Evening star., 1941-10-06

Just as there is considerable lip
service at the moment in Russia on
freedom of worship whereas the ac-
tual practice may be to the con-
trary, so in America proclamations
of high purpose and statements of
fine phrases are often uttered
defending the freedom of the press
as a fundamental of democracy.
Yet the true situation is better
reflected by what is going on in a
relatively little noticed hearing be-
ing conducted by the Federal Com
munications Commission of which
the chairman, James L. Fly is an
appointee of President Roosevelt.
Mr.. Fly is a conscientious citizen
with just as much right to advocate
restrictions on the press as Sena-
tors who want restrictions on the
freedom of the movies. But it is
amazing to find the taxpayers
money being used to conduct a
hearing on whether an owner of a
newspaper in America should be
permitted to own any other facility
Of public expression.
For If 1t is to be considered i'm
proper for an owner of a news
paper to own a broadcasting sta
ton, 1t would be wrong for the
owner of a broadcasting station ever
to own newspaper. And if Ameri-
can citizens can be restricted in
their opportunities to operate media
of expression of any kind, then the
principle can be carried to the point
where the owner of a movie theater
cannot own a broadcasting station
or a newspaper and the owner of a
big auditorium in city cannot own
a radio station or a newspaper or a
moving picture theater.
Far-Reaching in Its Effect.
The idea can be carried still fur
ther, namely, that the owner of the
only printing plant in town shall
not be permitted to own a news
paper or vice versa. There is no
end to the possible restriction that
can be practiced if it is constitu-
tional for governmental bureau by
mere regulation or even Congress
by statute to abridge the freedom
of the individual to exercise in his
own way freedom of speech or free
dom of expression through what
ever mechanical or physical facil-
tiles he may be able to command.
1t is interesting to note the type
of witnesses being brought here by
the Federal Communications Com
mission to testify against the press.
1t might be thought that real lib
erals would be outraged at the mere
suggestion of restriction, but only
last week Morris Ernst, famous for
his activities as lawyer in behalf of
the American Civil Liberties Union,
actually testified before the Fed
eral Communications saying that as
a matter Of PHILOSOPHY" he favored
the idea of forbidding owners of
newspapers to remain as owners Of
any broadcasting stations. On ex-
animation he conceded that he
didn't want any interference with
freedom of the press, but just the
same he didn't want an American
citizen hereafter to be permitted to
own what his brains and thrift
might permit him to own.
Similarly Carl Friedrich, professor
OF government in Harvard Uni
versity, who doubtless teaches the
young men of Harvard every day
the principles of democracy, told
the Federal Communications Com
mission that he not only favored
restriction on joint ownership of a
newspaper and radio station but he
wanted some form Of judicial con-
troll of the press itself. He wanted
newspaper editors to be required to
prove in court every statement they
might make. He didn't say any,
thing about making the individuals
who are quoted in interviews and
statements being required to prove
in court what they give the press to
print and he didn't say anything
about making members of Congress
stick to the truth when they hide
behind congressional immunity on
Capitol Hill and make libelous at
tacks on individuals and institu-
tions.
Public Checks Abuses.
The freedom of the press is some
times abused. But the public has
usually taken care of such abuses
In its own way. The advantages