Evening star., 1949-06-06
Fec Radio Editorial
Ruling Called Form
OF Thought Control
Doneer Seen in Spread
Of New Policy to Other
Medic of Expression
By Dacid Laurence

Fantastic and surprising as II
may be to most people to learn
about 1t, thought control" by the
Government of the United States
has just been officially reaffirmed
over both radio and television.
The Russians have been point
ing to alleged hypocrisy in the
United States on the subject OF
government control of thought
and when they read a copy of the
latest decision by the Federal
Communications Commission they
will find a most persuasive con-
firmation of their claim.
For the FEC fatty says that
the First Amendment to the Con-
stitution. which declares that Con-
gress shall make no law abridging
freedom Of speech, does not ap-
ply where the Government itself
issues q license for a facility. This
could conceivably lead to all sorts
of controls.
Thus the Government issues a
license to publications which wish
the second-class mail privilege and
denies it to those who do not con-
form to specified requirements
set forth by Congress. UP to
now the Government never has
evaluated what the contents of
each publication shall be. 1t has
merely defined general classes of
publications as to their bulk or
mechanical characteristics.
If it is constitutional, however
TO condition the issuance or revo-
cation of a License for a radio or
television station on whether the
owner of the station presents what
O. partisan political administra-
ton decides Is fair" or unfair
or a balanced" program on cur
rent controversial issues. then the
day is not far distant when the
Government may claim the same
legal right to regulate in detail
the contents Of other media of
public expression as a condition
Of use of a license or facility.
Decision Called Amazing.
The decision by the FEC is an
amazing piece of bureaucratic
writing and one reads therein
some incredible instructions to
radio stations as to how they
should balance" their programs
and what they should do or
shouldn't do by way of editorial
izing or editorializing." No
where is there any standard pre-
scribed that a station owner really
can follow. In fact, it Is emphat-
ically disclaimed that there can
be any such standard or formula
and the commission takes refuge
In the vague promise that If the
station owner has made q "rea-
sonable" effort to be fair. nothing
serious will happen to him.
But is 1t free speech for O sta
ton to be told that 1t must SUBJ
NIT its thoughts, motives and past
expressions to political admin
istration for review whenever Its
license is up for renewal?
Not long ago President Truman
told his press conference that
there were good and bad lobbies
and that those which supported
his legislative program were. OF
course, good and in the public in
terest. The remark was facetious.
But MIR. Truman appoints and
can remove the members Of the
Federal Communications Commis-
sion. Republican and Dixiecrat
owners of stations had better
learn promptly the new goose
steps of conformity.
It must be said that the FEC
opinion does endeavor to set forth
In an academic way how a~sta-
ton could be fair and what are
some Of the pitfalls that may be
encountered in refusing facilities
to one side or the other on a con-
troversial issue. But the more
the commissioners protest that
they will not be arbitrary and will
not punish a station If it makes
q reasonable" effort to be fair.
the more emphatically the docu-
ment claims the constitutional
right to ignore the first amend
ment.
Hughes Ruling Recalled.
The commission boldly defends
its right to constitutional abridg-
ment" on the ground that there Is
q limited number Of licenses and
that regulation Is necessary to
prevent chaotic interference" )"
What the commission distorts is
the original language Of Congress
which specified that licenses were
to be issued on the basis OF public
interest. convenience and neces-
sity."
The late Chief Justice Hughes
In a decision In behalf Of the Su-
preme Court of the United States
interpreted that phrase to mean
an ALLEGATION to prevent mechan-
ical collisions on wavelengths and
to assure that stations were prop
erly equipped from technical and
financial standpoints so as not. to
waste the license that someone
else might use to better advantage
for the community. MFR. Hughes
In his famous decision implied
that program content was not O
proper basis for censorship by a
governmental agency except. OF
course, under the customary limit
ations Of libel or obscenity or
fraud.
II the commission wishes. II
could accept the Hughes doctrine.
But 1t chooses instead to assert
the bureaucratic right to deter
mine what lis or Is not fair In poll
tics and public controversies. Once
Hitler proclaimed that all the
judges in Nazi Germany were to
A~~xI~ ~.~~~ stfo ixix,st ox. &tn ho ciS