Evening star., 1951-11-30
Radio Stations Are in the Middle

Radio stations are placed in most uncom-
Portable position by the decision OF the Federal
Communications Commission to interpret literally
and to enforce rigdy the legal ban on censor
ship of broadcasts made by political candidates.
The FEC asserts station cannot prevent even
obviously libelous statements by candidate 1or
election from going out on the air. The ban on
any censorship of such broadeasts Is regarded
by the commission as absolute" The radio
stations thus are placed squarely in the middle
between the Federal law and the laws of libel.
The problem is ticklish because it is hard
to draw definitive line between arbitrary. un-
necessary censorship of political address and
proper deetion of slanderous material that II
allowed to be broadcast, might subject the radio
station to liability for damages under State libel
laws indicative of the tight spot which radio
stations are in as a result Of the wording OF the
FEC Act was the New Orleans case on which the
FEC based its latest ruling. Station WDSU was
advised by it's attorneys that the advance script
of campaign address by candidate for Mayor
of New Orleans contained "lbelous and defama-
tory" statements which might subject the sta
ton to libel suit. The candidate was requested
to delete the Objectionable portions, but he re-
fused to do so, whereupon he was denied the
air complaint to the FEC was filed against
the station, which had applied for renewal OF
its broadcasting license.
The FEC granted the license, on the ground
that the station had acted "in good faith and
on the basis of legal advice The commission
pointed out that there has been some uncer-
tainty among broadcaSters as to the meaning OF
Section 315 of the FEC Act, which provides that
a station granting radio time to candidate for
office shall have no power OF censorship over
the material broadcast" This uncertainty has
been aggravated by congressional indecision over
the question of amending the law. There were
hearings on this question two years ago, after
the FEC had ruled in the so-called Port Huron
case that the no-censorship proviso OF Section
3l5 meant exactly what it said. At those hear
ings Chairman Coy of the FEC, under question
ing, announced an interim policy Of not acting
"capriciousy" in enforcing the ban. He indi-
Gated agreement with the committee chairman
that "for the time being, at least, until the
matter is settled, the honest and conscientious
broadcaster who uses ordinary common sense in
trying to prevent obscene or slanderous or libel
Gus statements from going over the air need not
fear any action"
But in the two years that have passed since
then Congress has done nothing to settle the
matter Nor has it been settled in the courts. A
libel suit that bears on the issue was filed in
Fairfax County during the recent contest for a
seat in the House of Delegates. That suit filed
by Edwin Lynch successful Democratic candidate
for reelection, charged Mr. Lynchs Republican
opponent, Douglas A. Clark, with making libeous
accusations against him over the radio. Mr..
Clark in his turn, took similar action.
The new FEC ruling ends the FEC interim
policy of discretionary enforcement of Section
315 1t means that "the honest and conscientious
broadcaster" cannot use ordinary common
sense" in trying to protect himself and the public
from abuse of broadcasting privileges. But the
FEC cannot fairly be blamed for the absurdity
of the situation that has arisen Congress wrote
the law and the FEC has every right to enforce
it as written Perhaps the FEC decision will
impel Congress to reconsider Section 315, in JUS
tice to the honest and conscientious broadcaster'
and to the listening public.