We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
STATIONS GUARD AGAINST LIBEL IN POLITICAL ADDRESSES
The broadcasters are now in the midst of the busiest days of this year. And in addition to the greatly increased activity in the broadcasting studios in all parts of the country caused by the last-minute rush of political speakers to microphones, the broadcasters must be constantly on the lookout for libelous statements during the last few days of the campaign. Station owners are apprehensive that in the last hours of the most bitterly fought contest in years, poli¬ tical speakers may digress from their prepared addresses and inject libelous statements, thinking they will be able to get away with it unnoticed.
While the key stations of the networks have legal departments which may be called upon to pass on whether or not a statement is libelous, there is seldom occasion for the chains to refer speeches to their lawyers. One explana¬ tion is that the networks deal with the more responsible candidates in both parties — men who realize that attempts to further their own cause by defamatory or libelous state¬ ments are futile. Then, too, the chains avoid, insofar as possible, having to present a speaker whom they know to be radical in his views and speech.
The reverse is true. It is the smaller, independent stations who have not the protection of legal advisors, who run the most risk of having libelous statements go out over their transmitters. Candidates in the smaller cities and communities who have their state or municipal affairs very close to heart are far more apt to forget themselves and make derogatory remarks about opponents than the nat ionallyknown political speaker.
The laws of libel and slander are basically the same — both concerning injury to a person’s or corporation's name, re¬ putation, credit or business.
Generally speaking, if a man holds a public office or is a candidate for such office , his political opponent may criticize his conduct in office and his general qualifications for the office. In such instances, if a libel or slander suit is filed, the speaker or the radio station could plead privilege. If the speaker goes beyond his privilege, however, and makes derogatory remarks about the personal life and habits of his political opponent, the privilege is destroyed. Speak¬ ers do frequently overstep this line in political campaigns and it is the lookout of the broadcasters to keep such state¬ ments off the air.
The broadcasters, acting upon an interpretation of the section of the Radio Act of 1927 having to do with political broadcasts, argued before the Supreme Court of Nebraska, have ’declared they will do all in their power to keep defamatory and libelous statements by political speakers off the air. Actually, until there is a ruling once and for all, their position is uncertain.
-2