Document: 360 U.S. 525 79 S.Ct. 1302 3 L.Ed.2d 1407 FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, NORTH DAKOTA DIVISION, a Corporation, Petitioner,v.WDAY, INC. No. 248. Argued March 23, 1959. Decided June 29, Mr. Edward S. Greenbaum and Mrs. Harriet F. Pilpel, New York City, for petitioner. Harold W. Bangert, Fargo, N.D., respondent. Douglas A. Anello, Washington, D.C., National Ass'n of Broadcasters, amicus curiae. Herbert Monte Levy, Rowland Watts, on the brief, American Civil Liberties Union, Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 We must decide whether § 315 Federal Communications Act 1934 bars broadcasting station from removing defamatory statements contained in speeches broadcast by legally qualified candidates public office, if so, that section grants federal immunity liability libelous so Section reads: 2 '(a) If any licensee shall permit person who is candidate office to use station, he afford equal opportunities all other such station: Provided, That have no power censorship over material under provisions this section. No obligation imposed upon allow its candidate.'1 This suit libel arose as result speech made radio television facilities respondent, WDAY, Inc., C. Townley—a 1956 United States senatorial race North Dakota. Because it felt compelled do requirements 315, WDAY permitted Townley his speech, uncensored respect, reply previous two candidates. Townley's substance, accused opponents, together with petitioner, Farmers Educational Cooperative Union America, conspiring 'establish Communist Soviet right here Dakota.' then sued Dakota State District court dismissed complaint against ground rendered immune defamation alleged. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating: 'Section imposes mandatory duty stations same their they one them. Since political broadcasts prohibited follow corollary mandate prohibiting includes privilege speakers.' For reason held state laws could not apply WDAY. 89 N.W.2d 102, 110. granted certiorari because questions decided are important administration Act. 358 810, 56, 54. I. 4 Petitioner argues 315's prohibition leaves broadcasters free delete candidates' speeches, therefore term censorship, however, commonly understood, connotes examination thought or expression order prevent publication 'objectionable' material. find clear legislative intent, nor convicting indicate Congress meant give 'censorship' narrower meaning 315. In arriving at view, we note petitioner's interpretation has generally been favored considerations Although first, years only judicial decision dealing wih provision did hold may remove broadcasts,2 subsequent interpretations considerable uniformity recognized an individual power.3 And while some Commission's views matter were clearly articulated,4 since 1948 continuously licensees cannot allegedly candidates.5 Similarly, history measure both prior first enactment 1927, subsequently, shows deep hostility either Commission licensee.6 5 More important, obvious permitting censor remarks would undermine basic purpose which was passed—full unrestricted discussion issues dates back to, adopted verbatim from, Radio 1927. Act, provided time comprehensive plan regulating new expanding art broadcasting. Recognizing radio's potential importance medium communication ideas, sought foster broadest possible utilization encouraging make available without discrimination, insuring these when be hampered discuss. Thus, expressly applying country's tradition field broadcasting, emphatically forbidden exercise communication.7 It line consistently denied 'power censorship' vital area broadcasts. 6 censoring far easy. Whether statement rarely clear. actionably even more complex question, involving does, consideration various legal defenses 'truth' fair comment. Such always troubled courts. Yet, view statute resolved during stress campaign, often, necessarily, adequate basis decision. Quite possibly, responsible material, faintly objectionable excluded out excess caution. Moreover, permissible, inclined intentionally inhibit candidate's legitimate presentation guise lawful matter. limitation inherent erroneous decisions corrected courts promptly enough bring improperly before public. follows allowing attenuated type advocated here, almost inevitably force avoid controversial debates television, hence restrict coverage relevant intelligent believe, certainly unwilling assume, intended result. II. 7 alternatively does grant though prohibits Again, agree. interpretation, unless refuses o t alk all, sanction unconscionable civil perhaps criminal very conduct demands licensee. Accordingly, reaching issue found implicit section.8 those cases concluding had immunity, construed—improperly hold—to potentially actionable material.9 case implied 8 contends, intend immunity. Some supports inference. As reached Senate, became 18 1927 part facilities, should 'be deemed common carrier interstate commerce * *' discriminate them.10 Senator Dill bill's floor manager—introduced amendment which, among things, specifically 'any utterances thus broadcast.'11 but granting removed Conference Committee explanation.12 incorporated into explanatory discussion. Subsequently, great deal pressure built up legislation doubt broadcasters' eiher them providing express Many proposals accomplish purposes,13 ever enacted. whatever adverse inference drawn failure legislate offset refusal than balancing inferences congressional fact Commission—the body entrusted administering rovisions Act—has long interpreted immunity.14 Not adhered despite many modify full knowledge significant additions amending depart view.15 light contradictory background feel reach seems conflict traditional concepts fairness. 9 nevertheless urges need specific protect themselves insure loss, alternative, deny facilities.16 means knowing what extent insurance stations, cost charging higher rates charge comparable used purposes, robably absorbed themselves. Petitioner's reliance stations' freedom 'to candidate,' equally misplaced. While denying us liability, also effectively withdraw air. Instead thrust facilitate debate television. this, considers carrying service criterion considered license renewal proceedings, comparative contests construction permit.17 Certainly knew obvious—that himself way refusing necessary effect hamper develop outlet, rather it.18 10 aware causes action widely throughout States. But hesitated abrogate law where satisfied enforcement stand 'as obstacle accomplishment execution purposes objectives Congress.'19 Here, petitioner asking attribute frustrate underlying enacted, impose unreasonable burdens parties governed legislation. absence will assume desired Agreeing broadcasts, merely read accordance believe purpose. 11 Affirmed. 12 FRANKFURTER, whom HARLAN, WHITTAKER STEWART join, dissenting. 13 language 'such section,'1 call conclusion Part I Court's opinion, namely, lawfully deleted due regard principle separation powers limiting functions respect binding federalism, leaving authority withdrawn Constitution Congress, compelling avoidance hardship imposed. Consequently claim liable constitutionally enacted tested inquiring particular 'unconscionable' barred construed applied settled principles statutory constitutional adjudication. When question properly put, examine three resort it. 14 (1) contain implicitly, between lines, laws, follow. excised bill later repeated attempts revisions introduce similar failed. 15 (2) there consistent administrative rulings required granted, ruling acquiesced implication, support. 16 (3) alone, remainder said manifest oust application licensees, conflictwit h whole, then, event, concluded preempted insofar applicability broadcaster acting within concerned. 17 agreement involves disregard departure determining overriding law. dissent II judgment. An agency cannot, course, determine displaced law, done. re Port Huron Broadcasting Co., F.C.C. 1069, censor, dictum finding pre-empted area. said, operating federally created defense, supplanted. 'The inescapable occupied connection responsibility *.' F.C.C., 1075 1076. 19 course ambiguous provision; single statute. law—that Supremacy Clause, Const. art. requires existence jurisdiction agencies. suppose insistence constitutionality affect constitutionality. 20 that, pre-emption, defer interpretation. There consistency FCC. never issued regulation adjudicatory proceeding Dictum affirmatively embraced five Commissioners presided. referred increasingly tentative fashion. WDSU Corp., Pike Fischer Reg. 769, 770, FCC Huron: 21 'We our relieved case, remained 315.' 22 1958 answered 'If slanderous remarks, therefor?' way: 23 'In Bctg. R.R. 1, expressed directly participating might absolved otherwise incur operation precludes preventing utterances.' Fed.Reg. 7820. 24 Thus demonstrated apparent waning confidence dictum—from '(t)he inescapable' 'in case' 'an liability.' 25 Even FCC's position deference acquiescence applicable, loger just past decade, taken true dealings support ruling. last took place 1952, Committee, reporting revised version stated rejected House provision2 26 '* subjects adequately studied Committees Interstate Foreign Commerce Senate Representatives. proposal after reported committee. difficult problems judgment committee conference acted hearings held.' H.R.Rep.No. 2426, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 21. 27 negates failing enact proposed measures acquiescing dictum.3 28 reasons change inaction effected pre-emption assumption wholly unsupported fact. attempt supersession raises stalement indecision4 level declaration. go slow negation power, speaks explicitly collision, less willingly frankly refused say. 29 proceeds insupportable opinion. relies determination Dakota's State's superseded A rests presuppositions explicit left clouded. ousted traditionally declaration intends forbid continued functioning unavoidable directives. exist here. Indeed, act often suggested recognition opposite. well urged relieve amounted affirmance continue debated terms erecting defense declined so. affirmative preclusion can speak drastic clarity intends. spoken here; clarity. 30 nature necessitates striking down numerous much-cited Sinnot v. Davenport, How. 227, 243, L.Ed. said: 31 agree, supremacy reserved repugnance direct positive, acts reconciled together.' 32 eliminate compulsion s programs fair, must, Clause construing it, begin. ethical imperatives. most harmonious deduction survive command set aside mere generalities about having 'occupied field,' loose talk instead demonstrations 'conflict' action. domain government practical affairs, stifled required, ordered, truly entail duties actual, argumentative, inroads commanded forbidden. 33 noted initially regarded intentional tort, solid likelihood conclude WDAY's lacked intent communicate defamation, tortious, or, prima facie privileged.5 censor. forty statutes degrees privilege.6 34 States, exercising flexibility common-law principles, extended carry 315.7 largely abstract makes heavy inroad laws—that committed voiti onal act—may entirely contradicted experience. 35 How treacherous speculating illustrated detailed situation presented case. extending general violate Constitutions, appellee Of Dakota, except rule validity conclusions On contrary, valid Chapter 14—02 Revised Statutes 1943. One chapter extends 'one stands relation interested reasonable supposing motive innocent.' being justification belief evidence least believed creates favor unconstitutionality lower is, final interpreter 36 justifies displacement power. Conflict attributed broadcasters, fault, refrain buy time. result, argument conclude, contrary operate 'public convenience, interest, necessity.' 48 Stat. 1083, amended, 47 U.S.C. 307, U.S.C.A. 307. determined fulfill prohibit airing They profitable (or unprofitable) compensate someone libeled broadcast. establish mode supervising income broadcasters—not protecting profits—but 'a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, world-wide wire service' benefit 'all people States.' 1064, 151, 151. 37 govern relations third persons. Station WOW, Inc. Johnson, 326 120, 65 1475, 2092. award damages breach contract ordered condition license. Regents University System Georgia Carroll, 338 586, 70 370, 94 363. applies fault. nothing conflicts necessity ong ress came fear impairment policy alter declining burden, unfairness stations. too, depriving defamed recovery magnified deleterious ability earn livelihood. Adjustment done enactment, through partially totally immune. allocation risk loss necessarily imply defame. harm avoided conflicting undesirables fall wise decision, opposing office. 38 discussing Federalist Papers respective areas powers, Hamilton wrote 'absolutely repugnant.' 'I terms,' wrote, distinguish another appear resemble would, fact, essentially different; mean concurrent productive occasional interferences branch administration, contradiction repugnancy point authority.' Federalist, 32, 200 (Van Doren ed. 1945). 'clearly admitted whole tenor' Hamilton's 'It possibility inconvenience immediate implication alienate extinguish pree xisting sovereignty.' Id., 203. 39 suggestion, emanating contest creation, disregarded approach today precisely analogous identical exists but, most, interference policy. begun presuppositions, alienation sovereignty Particularly precise involved conjectures assailed alleged forbearance, lawmaking guide asked declare unconstitutional outright. 40 invalidated hypothesizing 'conflicting' certain exist, incompatible judged governing decisions, corpus. 41 reverse remand instructions any, 1088, 315(a), 315(a). See also, 18, 44 1170. Sorensen Wood, 123 Neb. 348, 243 N.W. 82, 82 A.L.R. 1098. Following remanded trial. Appeal plaintiff Nebraska. sub nom. KFAB Co. Sorensen, 290 599, 54 209, 78 527, because, records disclose, Nebraska's holding based grounds, become moot settlement. Lamb Sutton, 164 F.Supp. 928; Yates Associated 2088; Felix Westinghouse Stations, 740, reversed Cir., 186 F.2d 1; Charles Parker Silver City Crystal 142 Conn. 605, 116 A.2d 440; Josephson Knickerbocker 179 Misc. 787, N.Y.S.2d 985. see Daniell Voice Hampshire, 2045; Houston Post 199. Bellingham 159, 172. 1069; 769; Public Notice (FCC 54—1155), Use Broadcast Facilities Candidates Office, 5948, 5951; 58 936), 7817, 7820—7821. S.Rep. 1567, 80th 13—14 (1948), where, 1333, Report stated: flat retained emphasized. itself reqiure alter, manner control subject own discretion authority. '(S)ection present act, deals communications . absolutely wuld interfere radio.' see, e.g., H.R.Rep. 404, 69th 1st 17—18 (minority views); 772, 4; 67 Cong.Rec. 5480, 5484, 12356; 10991—10992; Hearings 1754, Sess., pt. 2, 121, 125—134; H.R. 7716, 72d 9—13; 814, 78th 59—68, 943 945. 1172; 1934, 1091, 326, 326. Sutton; Inc.; supra, 3. Cf. 3; 2; 9971, May 6, 1926, p. 50, 4. 12501. 1886, 10, 18. See, 9230, 74th Sess.; §§ 7, 9, 11; 15; 98 7401. 9—11; 2910, 73d 63—67; 162—163, 362—381, 943—945; beore Select Investigate FCC, pursuant H.Res. 691, 1—109. 5, supra. port prosecutions libel. Two others subject. dissented. report stated, F.C.C.Ann.Rep. (1948). WDSU, released November 26, 1951, majority affirmed 769. (1958); 3, pages 932—933; 2047; page 619, 446. Annual Commission, special investigation House, constituted 2461, 772—773. Compare 20—21. examples 2539, 4814, 84th suggests 'strong likelihood' tortious privileged. Court, struck violation saving 'every man' remedy injury 'person reputation.' think record obtained calling privilege. hold, 49 Jacksonville, Fisher 113, 125—126, 180 i—j; Loyola University, 1017, 1099. Homer P. Rainey, 898. Report, Editorializing Licensees, Reg., 91:201. Fess, 12356. Bethlehem Steel Labor Relations Board, 330 767, 773, 1026, 1030, 91 1234; Hill Florida, 325 538, 542, 1373, 1375, 1782. San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. Garmon, 359 236, 775; California Taylor, 353 553, 77 1037, 1034. 7401—7416. appeared meaningful concept. Immediately criticized basis. Chairman Coy insisted 'only represents Commission' 'his clarifies industry concerned.' 14. After argued bill, 15, favorably Commerce, 13, Every indication persuasive open highly debatable. Both Huron, bills total partial introduced. 3038, 75th 3595, 6949, 81st 202; 5470, 7062, 7756, 1208, 1437, 85th 401. declination partakes satisfaction indecision propriety alternative solutions plea unfairness. Developments Law Defamation, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 875, 907—910; Remmers, Recent Legislative Trends Defamation Radio, 64 727. Friedenthal Medalie, Impact Regulation Political Broadcasting: 72 445, 485. Sup.Ct.,

Category: 2