Evening star., 1951-06-02


constitutional rights of passengers.
Here is a partial text of that opinion,
written by Judge Henry w. Edgerton:
Appellee Capital Transit Co. (Transit)
operates StreetcarS and buses in the Dis
trict of Columbia. In 1948 Transit made
a contract with appellee Washington
Transit Radio, Inc, (Radio) by which
Radio was to install and maintain loud
speakers in Transit vehicles and provide
broadcasts at least hours daily except
Sunday In October, 1949. loudspeakers
were in operation in 212 vehicles and it
was planned to increase the number to
1.500.
Though Transit and Radio call the
broadcasts music as you ride" they in
clude not only music but also CONNER
cials. announcements, and time signals"
The contract permits 6 minutes of COM
mercial announcements" per hour. These
vary from Is to IS seconds in length and
are usually scheduled about once in
five minutes, though the interval varies.
Appellee Public Utilities Commission
received protests against Transit's use Of
radio. It ordered an investigation and
held hearing Ito determine whether
or not the installation and use of radio
receivers on the streetcars and buses
of Capital Transit Co. is consistent
with public convenience, comfort and
safety :"
Appellants, who ride Transit vehicles,
and other persons and organizations
were allowed to intervene and took part
in the hearing. The Commission found
that transit radio does not reduce safety.
tends to improve the conditions under
which the public rides" and 'is not in
consistent with public convenience.
comfort and safety" The Commissions
final order dismissed" its investiga-
ton.
Transit passengers commonly have to
hear the broadcasts whether they want
to or not. The Commission made no
finding on this point but the fact Is well
known. 1t was proved by many wit
neSses. The passengers are known in
the industry as Captive audience"
Formerly they were free to read, talk,
mediate, or relax. The broadcasts have
replaced freedom of attention with
forced listening
Most people have to use mass trans
portation. In the District Of Columbia
this means they have to use Transit and
hear the broadcasts. Even as between
the District and the adjoining Pentagon
region in Virginia the Supreme Court
has said '' most Government en-
ployes, in going to and returning from
their work, were compelled to begin or
complete their trips by utilizing buses
or streetcars of Capital Transit"
The forced listening imposed on Tran
sit passengers results from Government
action. BY authorizing Transit and for
bidding others to operate local streetcars
and buses. Congress made it necessary
to ride the vehicles in which Transit
makes it necessary to hear the broad
casts. StreetcarS and buses cannot op-
crate in city streets without a franchise.
Congress has given Transit not only a
franchise but virtual monopoly of the
entire local business of mass transporta-
tion OF passengers in the District of Co
lumb1a. Furthermore. the forced listen
ing has been sanctioned by the gov
ernmental action of the Commission. If
the Commission had found it contrary
to public comfort or convenience or
unreasonable, it would have stopped.
Because the Commission decided other
wise 1t continues.
No occasion had arisen until now to
give effect to freedom from forced listen
ing as a constitutional right Short of
imprisonment, the only way to compel
mans attention for many minutes is
to lombard him with sound that he
cannot ignore in place where he must
be. The law Of nuisance protects him
at home. At home or at work, the con-
stitutional question has not arisen be-
cause the Government has taken no part
in forcing people to listen Until radio
was developed and some one realized
that the passengers of transportation
monopoly are captive audience, there
was no profitable way of forcing people
to listen while they travel between home
and work or on necessary errands.
Exploitation Of this audience through
assault on the unavertible sense of hear
ing is a new phenomenon. It raises "is-
sues that were not implied in the
means of communication known or
contemplated by Franklin and Jefferson
and Madison" But the Bill of Rights,
as appellants say in their brief, can
keep up with anything an advertising
man or an electronics engineer can think
Of
II 4Id1lSlI OUAScQ lIS passengers 10
read what it liked or get off the car,
invasion of their freedom would be
obvious. Transit obliges them to hear
what it likes or get off the car. Free
dom of attention. which forced listen
ing destroys, is part of liberty essen
tial to individuals and to society. The
Supreme Court has said that the consti-
tutional guarantee of liberty embraces
not only the right Of a person to be
free from physical restraint. but the
right to be free in the enjoyment of all
his faculties :" One who is subjected
to forced listening is not free in the
enjoyment Of all his faculties.
OF course, freedom from forced listen
ing, like other freedoms, is not absolute
No doubt the Government may compel
attention, as it may forbid speech, in
exceptional circumstances. But a de-
privation of liberty to which the Govern
ment is party is unconstitutional when