Evening star., 1951-01-21
Transit Music Faces Test on Scales of Justice
Sweet and Sour
Notes to Be Heard
By Appellate Court
By Hermon Schoden

By Hermon Sehoden
Does Americas ecious
freedom of speech include the
right to not listen against ones
will?
That's one of the questions
opponents of music while you
ride" will hurl in a Court of
Appeals test of transit radio
next month.
It's the elimination of a long
fight by a seeming minority of
passengers to put the kibosh on
music, commercials and news
on Capital Transit Co. buses
and streetcars.
Opponents of the radios pic
ture riders as Captive audi
encs," trapped by monopoly
holding transit company with
the Governments tacit consent,
and bombarded with an un-
asked-for impeachment to con-
versation, thinking and reading.
Freedom of speech is an
empty thing without freedom
to listen; freedom of the press
is meaningless without freedom
to read" is their legal stand.
"A Don Quixote lamenting his
woes in the Sierra Morena pre-
sents no problem of freedom of
speech, for there is no one to
hear him." they eloquently
argue. UNLESS it be heard and
understood. free speech is as
sounding brass and tinkling
cymbal."
Other Cities Do 1t, Too
Since December, 1949, when
the Public Utilities Commission
ruled that mobile music "is not
inconsistent with public con-
venience, comfort and safety"
Capital Transit has more than
doubled the number of receivers.
On 279 streetcars and 142
buses, between the hours of 7
am. and 10 pm. one can be
entertained or tormented, &C
cording to the viewpoint, by a
constant flow of light tunes,
brief newscasts and the omni-
present commercial.
Capital Transit's goal of a
fully equipped fleet of 1900
vehicles has been somewhat re-
tarded while all eyes follow the
legal skirmishes.
These have more than a
Washington flavor, for the out
come will weigh heavily in other
cities where transit radio has
been introduced III the face of
dissenting minorities.
Two attorneys, Franklin S..
Pollak and Guy Martin, are
leading the anti-radio fight here.
They intervened in the PUG
hearing and when that investi-
cation was closed. asked District
Court to vacate the commission
order.
On the grounds that transit
radio interferes with reading,
talking, thinking and resting" +"
the two attorneys started an
other action before the Fed
eral Communications Commis-
sion. They want the FEC to
revoke licenses of all radio sta
tions so engaged. The FEC is
biding its time, apparently also
watching the courts for a cue.
Then there is a small but fer
vent group known as the Transit
Riders Association, whose presi-
dent, Claude N. Palmer, voiced
the hope that the Supreme
Court would decide whether
riders are personal property
to be bought by advertisers at
so much per thousand"
Praying for final victory" at
one of their meetings. the
Transit Riders agreed they'd
had enough of buscasting."
AS both sides girded for ap-
peal arguments next month,
Capital Transit found that COM
plants have dropped off since
early experimental days.
Cite First Amendment
Most complaints now are
about sets that are too loud" p"
said Vice President E. c. Gid
dings. "As soon as one is re-
ported, the set is replaced with
another, which is better modu-
lated"
Hardly less interesting than
the surface sparring are the
legal questions. They were
passed on to the Court of APP
peals in briefs by Messrs. Pol
lax and Martin, and by the
PUG. Capital Transit and
Washington Transit Radio, Inc.
The latter two were permitted
to intervene, since Washington
Transit Radio installs and main
tains equipment under con-
tracts with radio Station WWDC
and Capital Transit.
Appellants Pollak and Mar
tin said that District Judge Ed
ward A. Tamm erred last June
in refusing to reverse the
PUC's decision that "basically
no legal right of the petitioners
has beer invaded. threatened or
violated"
What's more. they said, riders
who don't want the radios are
taking beating under the
Constitutions first amendment,
guaranteeing freedom of speech
and the fifth amendment. pro-
tecting their liberty and prop
erty.
Conceding that freedom OF
speech generally has been con-
sidered only from the point OF
the speaker, the appellants con-