Bazelon, C.J., dissenting from the order vacating the previous order granting rehearing en banc
How later courts described this case
- Bazelon, C.J., dissenting from the order vacating the previous order granting rehearing en banc
- original panel opinion by Judge Leventhal
- “Congress created the Federal Communications Commission and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, because the available space on the electromagnetic spectrum was far exceeded by the number of those who would use it.”
- spectrum “is not the private property of any individual or group”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1152 FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge:
I concur in the well- reasoned and comprehensive opinion of Judge Leventhal for the court. The opinion upholds the wide latitude to be accorded the press as essential to the mandate of the First Amendment, notwithstanding the limitation upon complete freedom imposed by the Fairness Doctrine which is applicable to broadcasting licensed under the standards of the Communications Act. One may hope that this latitude will not encourage in a different context abuses which, even though protected by the First Amendment, should be discouraged, 1 or lead to claims of such protection which could not be sustained.
. An example of abuses in an important area of national concern is documented in the well-balanced treatment of the relation of television broadcasting to the violence afflicting the nation contained in the Report of the President’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1969). This Commission was composed of an exceptional group of men and women under the Chairmanship of Dr. Milton Eisenhower, distinguished brother of the late President. The Report states in part:
We do not suggest that television is a principal cause of violence in society. We do suggest that it is a contributing factor: Television, of course, operates in a complex social setting and its effects are undoubtedly mitigated by other social influences. But it is a matter for grave concern that at a time when the values and the influence of traditional institutions such as family, church, and school are in question, television is emphasizing violent, anti-social styles of life.
The television industry has consistently argued that its standards for the portrayal of violence and its machinery for enforcement of these standards are adequate to protect the public interest. We do not agree. . . .
We believe that the television networks, network affiliates, independent stations, and other members of the broadcasting industry should recognize the strong probability that a high incidence of violence in entertainment programs is contributing to undesirable attitudes and even to violence in American society. It is time for them to stop asserting “not proved” to charges of adverse effects from pervasive violence in television programming when they should instead be accepting the burden of proof that such programs are not harmful to the public interest. Much remains to be learned about media violence and its effects, but enough is known to require that constructive action be taken at once to reduce the amount and alter the kind of violent programs which have pervaded television.
pp. 199-202.
The matter of course is aggravated by the lack of adequate control of firearms.