Evening star., 1952-10-27
When Libel Is LeqoI

Congress probably will give further study to
the troublesome question of libelous political
broadcasts, as a result of incidents that have
arisen during the current campaign. Latest of
the Squabbles was that arising from the can
collation. of television appearance by Senator
Mccarthy, Republican, of Wisconsin over a
Seattle station. OF more local interest was the
recent barring of an anti-Broyhill committee by
WMAL-TV on the ground that possibly libelous
matter was contained in the script. Legislation
to clarity the position of broadcasters in connec-
ton with the Federal mandate against censor
ship of political speeches was introduced at the
past session of Congress, but failed of passage.
In fairness to the broadcasting industry, the
legislation should be revived
Cancellation of the Mccarthy broadcast fol-
lowed inability of the Senator and the station
to agree on proposed deletion of what attorneys
for the station regarded as potentially lbelous
statements Senator Mccarthy had gone to the
State of Washington to campaign for Senator
Cain The alleged libel was aimed at two staff
members of a columnist with whom the Wis
consin legislator has clashed frequently. Senator
Mccarthy argued that the station had no legal
right to censor paid political broadcast.
Senator Mccarthy was partly right. The
basic Federal Communications Act forbidS
broadcaSter from cenSoring remarks of any
candidate for political office. But the law does
not require a station to allow candidate to
speak, unless his opponent previously has been
granted time on the air. Senator Mccarthy
presumably intended to speak in support of
Senator Cain. The Supreme Court has refused
to overturn lower court ruling that since the
FEC law specifies that speeches of candidates"
may not be censored, spokesmen for candidates
not entitled to freedom from censorship. If
Senator Mccarthy was to appear in the role OF
ho
immune from television censorship. And 1t
would follow that the station had the right to
reject his script unless libelous matter was
eliminated.
Broadcasters have had recurring troubles
with. the question Of political censorship ever
since Congress, in 1884, approved this language
in the FEC Act: IF any licensee shall permit any
person who is a legally qualified candidate for
any public office to use broadcaStng station,
he shall afford equal opportunity to all other
such candidates for that office in the use of such
broadcaSting station-provided that such licensee
shall have no power of censorship over the mat
ter broadcast under this act" The FEC has
ruled that stations must abide strictly by this
law even If they believe that lbelouS matter will
be broadcast However, the commission has
stated that obscenity may be deleted from any
script. Stations not subject to libel suits for
complying with the law, according to the FEC
Interpretation of the act. The candidate making
the questioned statements can, however, be held
liable in the courts, the commission asserted in
a statement of policy.
Despite the FEC assurances, the broadcast
ing industry has never felt entirely secure.
Because of this uncertainty, legislation was in
troduced last year to spell out in the law that a
station may not be sued for libel If it complies
with the censorship provision of the FEC
law. Another bill would have extended the nom
censorship clause to cover speeches by nom
candidate in behalf of a political candidate.
But Congress failed to act on any of these
proposals. Confusion is likely to exist until
statutory force is given to the interpretations
of the old law by the FEC and the courts.