Evening star., 1948-03-03
Ban on Radio Stations
Editorial Opinions
Called Amazing
2. c. c. Ruling Permits
Virtual Censorship by
Government Decree

NfItuut censorship py
Government Decree
By David Laurence
There's . lot Of talk on liberal
ism" and civil rights" and "free
speech" emanating from radicals
hereabouts, but when 1t comes to-
applying the principle to radio
broadcasting, their idea seems to be
TO restrict It or to let the Govern
ment apply virtual censorship or to
regulate 1t by Government decree.
The opposition, which wants the
radio opened up so that opinions
can be expressed freely, Is considered
''reactionary" or at least that Is the
main basis of the present edict-the
fear that private companies owning
radio stations may not be tools OF
the radicals and may possibly in
troduce a conservative point Of view
once in a while.
Actually it Is amazing that In free
America the question Of whether
radio stations shall be permitted to
express editorial opinions should be
debated. Maybe Moscow papers had
better not notice the hearings going
on now. Maybe the fact that the
Federal Communications Commis-
sion, a Government agency, forbids
editorial expressions-which will be
a surprise to most Americans
ought to be concealed lest the Com
munists cry: Hypocrisy"
Cannot Express Views.
But the truth Is that an owner
of a radio station cannot express
his views as does the editor or owner
of a newspaper or periodical. The
excuse for all this Is that the wave
lengths are limited in number and
hence the Government must regu-
late their use. Now there are plenty
of channels. Multiplicity has re-
suited from inventions. The original
idea was that regulation should
merely prevent mechanical COLI
sions or interferences and that wave
lengths or "frequencies" should be
allocated to stations that could per-
form program service. Gradually
the Federal Communications Com
mission usurped the power given
to 1t by Congress to handle me-
chanical ALLEGATIONS and insisted on
going into program content.
It is denied, of course, that the
commission does this, but when 1t
issues an order forbidding editorial
expressions there can be no doubt
about the implied censorship Of
views.
The argument is advanced that
radio is different from newspapers
or periodicals in that persons OF
limited knowledge or intelligence
could be easily misled by agitators
and that the Government must al
ways keep control. This is but an
other way of saying that the people
of America cannot be trusted and
that democracy is dangerous.
In the course of the last several
years many agitators have, by one
means or another, gotten a hearing
on the radio. The people sometimes
turn of these speakers or listen with
amused tolerance. America has not
suffered because Of the free express
sions of opinions that have come
from programs with speakers on
controversial subjects.
Ruling Splits Hairs.
To say that the owner may not
express an opinion over his own ra-
dio station or hire any speakers to
express views on current questions
but that he may permit outside
speakers. to express editorial views
is to split hairs. Yet this is exactly
what the ruling Of the Federal Com
munications Commission does.
The contention is made that the
ruling should require an owner of a
station to allow time for both
sides" Publishers do this through
letters from readers and by print
ing the news which day by day con-
tains plenty Of expressions Of edi-
torial opinions in the form of inter-
views by opposing sides. Often one
side gets printed one day, and it is
several days before there is a reply.
The owner of a publication doesn't
feel that this delay is his response
bility. 1t may be bad public rela-
tions for the protagonist, but the
delay is not the responsibility of the
medium of expression.
A sensible owner of radio station
will try to get both sides or lose
public patronage, but to impose
Government rule requiring him to
do 50 is to edit the program of his
station. 1t is better to allow for the
occasional instances of abuse than
to permit the Government by law
to regulate so-called "impartiality"
or to say what is both Sides" Often
there are a dozen sides to contro-
versy.
1t was the late Oliver Wendell
Holmes, associate justice Of the Su-
preme Court of the United States
the greatest liberal Of them all
who defined freedom Of speech as
freedom for the thought we hate"
Maybe the governmental agencies
which call themselves liberal do not
know the true meaning of that quo
tation. 1t Is surprising also to find
the American Civil Liberties Union
forgetting that definition, too, and
at the hearings on a con-
tinuance Of Government censorship
by means Of regulated program con-
tent. i
Reproduction Rights Reserved)