In Re WUHY-FM, EASTERN EDUCATION
RADIO, 4548 MARKET STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
24 F.C.C.2d 408
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 70-346
April
3, 1970 Released; Adopted April 1, 1970
JUDGES:
BY THE
COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN BURCH CONCURRING IN THE RESULT; COMMISSIONER COX CONCURRING
IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART AND ISSUING A STATEMENT; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DISSENTING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT;
COMMISSIONER H. REX LEE ABSENT.
OPINION:
[*408]
1. The constitutes Notice of Apparent
Liability for forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended.
2. The facts.
Noncommercial educational radio station WUHY-FM is licensed to Eastern
Education Radio, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On January 4, 1970, WUHY-FM broadcasted its weekly program "Cycle
II" from 10.00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. n1 This broadcast featured an interview with one Jerry
Garcia, leader and member of "The Grateful Dead", a California rock
and roll musical group. The interview
was recorded on tape in Mr. Garcia's hotel room in New York City on Saturday
afternoon, January 3, 1970. The
interview was conducted by Messrs.
Steve Hill and David Stupplebeen, who are both architects in the
Philadelphia area, and who have been engaged from time to time on a volunteer
basis by WUHY-FM to assist in programming.
Mr. Robert J. Bielecki, a full-time staff engineer for WUHY-FM, was
[**2] in charge of the production as a
volunteer producer; Mr. Bielecki had been allowed supervision of "Cycle
II" since its inception in November of 1969. Hill and Stupplebeen returned to Philadelphia Sunday afternoon
about 4:00 P.M. (January 4, 1970) with the tape of the recorded interview. Hill spent the next three or four hours
editing the tape; i.e., allowing for musical selections. Mr. Bielecki, who was engaged in routine
engineering duties at the time, listened to portions of the tape from time to
time. Neither Hill, Bielecki, nor
Stupplebeen discussed the tape with Mr. Nathan Shaw, the station manager, nor did
they seek his clearance in any way; Mr. Shaw, though not at the station, could
have been reached at home.
n1 The licensee states that this is
a one-hour, weekly broadcast which is "underground" in its
orientation and "is concerned with the avant-garde movement in music,
publications, art, film, personalities, and other forms of social and artistic
experimentation." It is designed to reach youthful persons (e.g., the
large college population in Philadelphia and "so-called 'alienated'
segments of the new generation" -- p. 1.
WUHY Letter of February 12, 1970).
"Cycle II" is the successor program to a similar program
entitled "Feed." [**3]
[*409]
3. During the interview, about
50 minutes in length, broadcast on January 4, 1970, Mr. Garcia expressed his
views on ecology, music, philosophy, and interpersonal relations. See Appendix A for the example comments on
these subjects, as set forth in the licensee's letter of February 12, 1970. His comments were frequently interspersed
with the words "f--k" and "s--t", used as adjectives, or
simply as an introductory expletive or substitute for the phrase, et
cetera. Examples are:
S--t man.
I must answer
the phone 900 f----n' times a day, man.
Right, and it
sucks it right f-----g out of ya, man.
That kind of s--t.
It's f----n'
rotten man. Every f----n' year.
... this s--t.
... and all that
s--t -- all that s--t.
... and s--t
like that.
... so f-----g
long.
Everybody knows
everybody so f-----g well that...
S--t.
S--t. I gotta get down there, man.
All that s--t.
Readily
available every f-----g where.
Any of that s--t
either.
Political change
is so f-----g slow.
4. At the conclusion of the Garcia interview,
Mr. Hill presented a person known as "Crazy Max", whose real name is
not known to the licensee. "Crazy
Max" had been a visitor to the station,
[**4] and he told Hill, while
listening to the Garcia interview, that if there were time left in the program
he wanted to make some remarks about computers and society. There was a short period left, and
"Crazy Max" delivered his message, which also used the word
"f--k." The licensee states that Mr. Hill did not know what
"Crazy Max" was going to say in detail, or how he was going to say
it. It adds that "Crazy Max"
will not be allowed access to the microphone again.
5. In its letter of February 12, 1970, written
in response to the Commission's request for comments on the January 4th
broadcast, n2 the licensee further states:
n2 While the license states that it received
no complaints concerning this January 4th broadcast (nor, we note, did the
Commission), the Commission had received several complaints concerning this
10:00 P.M. slot on WUHY-FM (directed to the similar "Feed" program,
which "Cycle II" succeeded in November, 1969); it therefore did
monitor the broadcast, and specifically that of January 4th.
The licensee has
a standing policy, known to all personnel including Mr. Bielecki, that all
taped program material which contains controversial subject matter or
language [**5] must be reviewed by Mr. Nathan Shaw, the
station manager of WUHY-FM, Mr. Bielecki, the producer of this program, did not
bring the program to Mr. Shaw's attention.
Neither Mr. Shaw nor any other person in the station management heard or
reviewed the program before it was aired.
Mr. Bielecki has been removed as a producer because of this infraction
of station policy. "Cycle II"
has been suspended as a program pending licensee review of this entire
matter. Internal procedures to insure
against a similar incident are being strengthened.
6. Discussion -- policy. The issue in this case is not whether
WUHY-FM may present the views of Mr. Garcia or "Crazy Max" on
ecology, society, computers, and so on.
Clearly that decision is a matter solely within the judgment of the
licensee. See Section 326 of the
Communications [*410] Act of 1934, as amended. Further, we stress, as we have before, the
licensee's right to present provocative or unpopular programming which may
offend some listeners. In re Renewal of
Pacifica, 36 FCC 147, 149 (1964). It would markedly disserve the public
interest, were the airwaves restricted only to inoffensive, bland
material. Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting
Co., Inc. [**6] v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Further, the
issue here does not involve presentation of a work of art or on-the-spot
coverage of a bona fide news event. n3 Rather the narrow issue is whether the licensee may
present previously taped interview or talk shows where the persons intersperse
or begin their speech with expressions like, "S--t, man...",
"... and s--t like that", or "... 900 f----n' times",
"... right f-----g out of ya", etc.
n3 In this connection, we note
licensee's apt statement of policy (pp. 5-6, Letter of February 12, 1970):
"The question whether to air a program which contains controversial
subject matter or language is among the most difficult a licensee is called
upon to resolve. In determining whether
to air any program which contains material or language which is potentially offensive
or disagreeable to some listeners, licensee balances a number of
considerations: The subject matter of the program; its value or relevance to
the segment of listeners to which it is directed; whether the program is a work
of art; whether it is a recognized classic; and whether the potentially
offensive language or material is essential to the integrity of the
presentation. Licensee also takes into
account such factors as the time of the broadcast, the likelihood that children
may be in the audience, and the necessity for appropriate cautionary
announcements to listeners in advance of potentially disagreeable
programming." [**7]
7. We believe that if we have the authority, we
have a duty to act to prevent the widespread use on broadcast outlets of such
expressions in the above circumstances.
For, the speech involved has no redeeming social value, and is patently
offensive by contemporary community standards, with very serious consequences
to the "public interest in the larger and more effective use of
radio" (Section 303(g)). As to the
first point, it conveys no thought to begin some speech with "S--t,
man...", or to use "f-----g" as an adjective throughout the
speech. We recognize that such speech
is frequently used in some settings, but it is not employed in public
ones. Persons who might use it without
thought in a home, job or barracks setting generally avoid its usage when on a
public conveyance, elevator, when testifying in court, etc. Similarly, its use can be avoided on radio
without stifling in the slightest any thought which the person wishes to
convey. In this connection, we note
that stations have presented thousands of persons from all walks of life in
talk or interview shows, without broadcasting language of the nature here
involved. However much a person may
like to talk this way, [**8] he has no right to do so in public arenas,
and broadcasters can clearly insist that in talk shows, persons observe the
requirement of eschewing such language.
8. This brings us to the second part of the
analysis -- the consequence to the public interest. First, it WUHY can broadcast an interview with Mr. Garcia where
he begins sentences with "S--t, man...", or uses "f-----g"
before word after word, just because he likes to talk that way, so also can any
other person on radio. Newscasters or
disc jockeys could use the same expressions, as could persons, whether
moderators or participants, on talk shows, on the ground that this is the way
they talk and it adds flavor or emphasis to their speech. n4
But the consequences [*411] of any such widespread practice would be to
undermine the usefulness of radio to millions of others. For, these expressions are patently
offensive to millions of listeners. And
here it is crucial to bear in mind the difference between radio and other
media. Unlike a book which requires the
deliberate act of purchasing and reading (or a motion picture where admission
to public exhibition must be actively sought), broadcasting is disseminated
generally to the public [**9] (Section
3(0) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 153(0)) under circumstances
where reception requires no activity of this nature. Thus, it comes directly into the home and frequently without any
advance warning of its content.
Millions daily turn the dial from station to station. While particular stations or programs are
oriented to specific audiences, the fact is that by its very nature, thousands
of others not within the "intended" audience may also see or hear
portions of the broadcast. n5 Further, in that audience are very large numbers of
children. n6 Were this type of programming (e.g., the WUHY
interview with the above described language) to become widespread, it would
drastically affect the use of radio by millions of people. No one could ever know, in home or car
listening, when he or his children would encounter what he would regard as the
most vile expressions serving no purpose but to shock, to pander to
sensationalism. Very substantial
numbers would either curtail using radio or would restrict their use to but a
few channels or frequencies, abandoning the present practice of turning the
dial to find some appealing program. In
light of the foregoing considerations [**10]
we note also that it is not a question of what a majority of licensees
might do but whether such material is broadcast to a significant extent by any
significant number of broadcasters. In
short, in our judgment, increased use along the lines of this WUHY broadcast
might well correspondingly diminish the use for millions of people. It is one thing to say, as we properly did
in Pacifica, [*412] that no segment, however large its size, may
rule out the presentation of unpopular views or of language in a work of art
which offends some people; and it is quite another thing to say that WUHY has
the right to broadcast an interview in which Mr. Garcia begins many sentences
with, "S--t, man...", an expression which conveys not thought, has no
redeeming social value, and in the context of broadcasting, n7 drastically curtails the usefulness of the medium
for millions of people.
n4 To give but one further example,
suppose a disc jockey or a moderator on a talk show for sensational or shock
purposes aimed at particular audiences, began using expressions such as
"Listen to this mother f-----g record [or person]." There is no
question but that such use of this vulgar term for an incestuous son is utterly
without redeeming social value and, on radio, taking into account its nature
(see above paragraph), patently offensive.
See discussion, par. 10, infra.
n5 In a very real sense, the
situation here is the very opposite of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969),
which involved the private possession or use of obscene material.
n6 For example, the following tables
point up the children's audience in the evening hours for radio and television:
Average quarter-hour radio audience of
teenagers (12 to 17 years) as a percentage of all teenagers in metro area, 1969
|
Time |
Los Angeles |
New York |
Washington, |
|
|
|
City |
D.C. |
|
8 to 9 p.m |
16.5 |
16.6 |
14.1 |
|
9 to 10 p.m |
14.8 |
16.9 |
14.5 |
|
10 to 11 p.m |
10.5 |
13.8 |
14.1 |
|
11 to 12 midnight |
4.8 |
6.5 |
10.9 |
Children (2 to 17 years) viewing TV as
percentage of total persons viewing based on New York and Los Angeles survey
February-March
|
|
Children as
percent of total |
Child |
||
|
|
|
|
|
total |
|
Time period |
2 to 6 |
6 to 11 |
11 to 17 |
(percent) |
|
|
years |
years |
years |
|
|
Sunday to Saturday, 7:30 to 9 p.m |
5 |
13 |
12 |
30 |
|
Sunday to Saturday, 9 to 11 p.m |
1 |
5 |
13 |
19 |
|
Average prime time: |
|
|||
|
Sunday to Saturday, 7:30 to 11 p.m |
3 |
10 |
13 |
26 |
|
Monday to Friday, 11:30 p.m. to 1
a.m |
1/2 |
1/2 |
5 |
6 |
n7 We stress that our analysis is
limited to broadcasting because of its unique nature of dissemination into
millions of homes. The difference is
pointed up by this very document. It is
perfectly proper, in the analysis here, to use the pertinent expressions of Mr.
Garcia. There is no other way to deal
intelligently with the subject. But in
any event, it takes a conscious act by someone interested in the subject to
obtain this document and study its content. [**11]
9. For the foregoing reasons, and specifically
to prevent any emerging trend in the broadcast field which would be
inconsistent with the "larger and more effective use of radio", we
conclude that we have a duty to act, if we have the authority to act. We turn now to the issue of our authority.
10. Discussion -- Law (Authority). There are two aspects of this issue. First, there is the question of the
applicability of 18 U.S.C. 1464, which makes it a criminal offense to
"utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio
communication." This standard, we note, is incorporated in the
Communications Act. See Sections
312(a)(6) and 503(b)(1)(E), 47 U.S.C. 312(a)(6); 503(b)(1)(E). The licensee urges that the broadcast was
not obscene "because it did not have a dominant appeal to prurience or
sexual matters" (Letter, p. 5). We
agree, and thus find that the broadcast would not necessarily come within the
standard laid down in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 418 (1965); see
also Jacobelli v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 191 (1963); Roth v. United States, 354
U.S. 476 (1956). However, we believe that the statutory term,
"indecent", should be applicable, and that, [**12] in the broadcast
field, the standard for its applicability should be that the material broadcast
is (a) patently offensive by contemporary community standards; and (b) is
utterly without redeeming social value.
The Court has made clear that different rules are appropriate for
different media of expression in view of their varying natures. "Each method tends to present its own
peculiar problems." Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 502-503 (1951). We
have set forth in par. 8, supra, the reasons for applicability of the above
standard in defining what is indecent in the broadcast field. We think that the factors set out in par. 8
are cogent, powerful considerations for the different standard in this markedly
different field.
11. There is no precedent, judicial or
administrative, for this case. There have
been few opinions construing 18 U.S.C. 1464 (e.g., Duncan v. U.S., 48
F.2d 128 (C.C.A. Or. 1931), certiorari denied 283 U.S. 863; Gagliardo v. U.S.,
366 F.2d 720 (1966)), and none in the broadcast field here involved. The issue whether the term, "indecent",
has a meaning different from "obscene" in Section 1464 was raised in
Gagliardo (366 F. 2d at pp. 725-26) but not resolved. [**13] Support for giving
it a different meaning is indicated by U.S. v. Limehouse, 285 U.S. 424 (1932)
which held that the word "filthy" which was added to the postal
obscenity law by amendment, now 18 U.S.C. §
1461, meant [*413] something other than "obscene, lewd, or
lascivious", and permitted a prosecution of the sender of a letter which
"plainly related to sexual matters" and was "coarse, vulgar,
disgusting, indecent; and unquestionably filthy within the popular meaning of
that term." However, in line with the principle set out above in Burstyn,
the matter is one of first impression, and can only be definitively settled by
the courts. We hold as we do, since
otherwise there is nothing to prevent the development of the trend which we
described in par. 8, from becoming a reality.
12. The licensee argues that the program was not
indecent, because its basic subject matters "... are obviously
decent"; "the challenged language though not essential to the meaning
of the program as a whole, reflected the personality and life style of Mr.
Garcia"; and "the realistic portrayal of such an interview cannot be
deemed 'indecent' because the subject incidentally used strong or salty
language." (Letter, [**14] p. 5).
We disagree with this approach in the broadcast field. Were it followed, any newscaster or talk
moderator could intersperse his broadcast with these expressions, or indeed a
disc jockey could speak of his records and related views with phrases like,
"S--t, man..., listen to this mother f----r", on the ground that his
overall broadcast was clearly decent, and that this manner of presentation
reflected the "personality and life style" of the speaker, who was
only "telling it like it is." The licensee itself notes that the
language in question "was not essential to the presentation of the subject
matter..." but rather was "... essentially gratuitous." We think
that is the precise point here -- namely, that the language is
"gratuitous" -- i.e., "unwarranted or [having] no reason for its
existence" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Ed., p. 435). There is no valid basis in these
circumstances for permitting its widespread use in the broadcast field, with
the detrimental consequences described in par. 8, supra.
13. The matter could also be approached under
the public interest standard of the Communications Act. Broadcast licensees must operate in the
public interest (Section [**15]
315(a)), and the Commission does have authority to act to insure such
operation. Red Lion Broadcasting Co.,
Inc. v. F.C.C. 395 U.S. 367, 380 (1969). This does not mean, of course, that
the Commission could properly assess program after program, stating that one
was consistent with the public interest and another was not. That would be flagrant censorship. See Section 326 of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. 326; Banzhaf v. F.C.C., 132 U.S. App. D.C. 14, 27; 405 F. 2d 1082,
1095 (1968), certiorari denied, 395 U.S. 973 (1969). However, we believe that
we can act under the public interest criterion in this narrow area against
those who present programming such as is involved in this case. The standard for such action under the
public interest criterion is the same as previously discussed -- namely, that
the material is patently offensive by contemporary community standards and
utterly without redeeming social value.
These were the standards employed in Palmetto Broadcasting Co., 33 FCC
483; 34 FCC 101 (1963), affirmed on other grounds, E. G. Robinson, Jr. v.
F.C.C., 108 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 344 F. 2d 534 (1964), certiorari denied, 379
U.S. 843, where the Commission denied
[*414] the application
[**16] for renewal of a licensee which,
inter alia, had presented smut during a substantial period of the broadcasting
day. n8
n8 The Commission there found the
programming patently offensive by contemporary community standards and no
evidence that it "... in some way served the needs and interests of the
area."
14. In sum, we hold that we have the authority
to act here under Section 1464 (i.e. 503(b)(1)(E)) or under the public interest
standard (Section 503(b)(1)(A)(B) -- for failure to operate in the public
interest as set forth in the license or to observe the requirement of Section
315(a) to operate in the public interest).
Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367, 376, n. 5.
However, whether under Section 1464 or the public interest standard, the
criteria for Commission action thus remains the same, in our view -- namely,
that the material be patently offensive and utterly without redeeming
value. Finally, as we stressed before
in sensitive areas like this (Report and Order on Personal Attack Rules, 8 FCC
2d 721, 725 (1968)), the Commission can appropriately act only in clear-cut,
flagrant cases; doubtful or close cases are clearly to be resolved in the
[**17] licensee's favor.
15. Discussion -- Application of the above
principles to this case. In view of the
foregoing, little further discussion is needed on this aspect. We believe that the presentation of the
Garcia material quoted in par. 3 falls clearly within the two above criteria, n9 and hence may be the subject of a forfeiture under
Section 503(b)(1)(A)(B) and (E). We further
find that the presentation was "willful" (503(b)(1)(A)(B)). We note that the material was taped. Further the station employees could have
cautioned Mr. Garcia either at the outset or after the first few expressions to
avoid using these "gratuitous" expressions; they did not do so. n10
That the material was presented without obtaining the station manager's
approval -- contrary to station policy -- does not absolve the licensee of
responsibility. See KWK, Inc., 34 FCC
2d 1039, affirmed 119 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 337, F. 2d 540 (1964). Indeed, in light of the facts here, there
would appear to have been gross negligence on the part of the licensee with
respect to its supervisory duties.
n9 There does not appear to be any
factual dispute. However, the licensee
has the opportunity to advance any pertinent factual considerations in response
to this Notice and may of course obtain a trial de novo of the matter in the
district court. See Section 504(a).
n10 Indeed, one of the station
participants stated at the outset of the interview, "We are going to do a
lot of illegal things before this is over." [**18]
16. We turn now to the question of the
appropriate sanction. The licensee
points out that this is one isolated occurrence, and that therefore the Palmetto
decision is inapposite. We agree that
there is no question of revocation or denial of license on the basis of the
matter before us, even without taking into account the overall record of the
station, as described in the licensee's letter, pp. 6-8. See also In re Renewal of Pacifica, 36 FCC
147 (1964). Rather, the issue in this case is whether to impose a forfeiture
(since one of the reasons for the forfeiture provision is that it can be
imposed for the isolated occurrence, such as an isolated lottery, etc.). On this issue, we note that, in view of the
fact that this is largely a case of first impression, particularly as to the
Section 1464 aspect, we could appropriately forego the forfeiture and simply
act prospectively in this field. See,
Taft Broadcasting Co., 18 FCC 2d 186; Bob Jones University, 18 FCC 2d 8;
WBRE-TV TV, [*415] Inc., 18 FCC 2d 96. However, were we to do
so, we would prevent any review of our action and in this sensitive field we
have always sought to insure such reviewability. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co.,
[**19] Inc. v. F.C.C., 395 U.S.
367, 376, n. 5. We believe that a most crucial peg underlying all Commission
action in the programming field is the vital consideration that the courts are
there to review and reverse any action which runs afoul of the First
Amendment. Thus, while we think that
our action is fully consistent with the law, there should clearly be the avenue
of court review in a case of this nature (see Section 504 (a)). Indeed, we would welcome such review, since
only in that way can the pertinent standards be definitively determined. Accordingly, in light of that consideration,
the new ground which we break with this decision, and the overall record of
this noncommercial educational licensee, we propose to assess a forfeiture of
only $100.00.
CONCLUSION
17. We conclude this discussion as we began
it. We propose no change from our
commitment to promoting robust, wide-open debate. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., supra; Pacifica Foundation,
supra. Simply stated, our position -- limited to the facts of this case -- is
that such debate does not require that persons being interviewed or station
employees on talk programs have the right to begin their speech with, [**20]
"S--t, man...", or use "f-----g," or "mother
f-----g" as gratuitous adjectives throughout their speech. This fosters no debate, serves no social
purpose, and would drastically curtail the usefulness of radio for millions of
people. Indeed, significantly, in this
case, under the licensee's policy (which was by-passed by its volunteer
employees), Mr. Garcia's views would have been presented without the gratuitous
expressions, but with them, the public would never have heard his views.
18. In view of the foregoing, we determine that,
pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(A), (B), (E) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, Eastern Education Radio has incurred an apparent liability of one
hundred dollars ($100).
19. Eastern Education Radio is hereby notified
that it has the opportunity to file with the Commission, within thirty (30)
days of the date of the receipt of this Notice, a statement in writing as to
why it should not be held liable, or, if liable, why the amount of liability
should be reduced or remitted. Any such
statement should be filed in duplicate and should contain complete details
concerning the allegations heretofore made by the Commission, any justification
for [**21] the violations involved, and
any other information which Eastern Education Radio may desire to bring to the
attention of the Commission. Statements
of circumstances should be supported by copies of relevant documents where
available. Upon receipt of any such
reply, the Commission will determine whether the facts set forth therein are
sufficient to relieve Eastern Education Radio of Liability, or to justify
either reduction or remission of the amount of liability. If it is unable to find that Eastern
Education Radio should be relieved of liability, the Commission will issue an
Order of Forfeiture and the forfeiture will be payable to the Treasurer of the
United States.
[*416]
20. If Eastern Education Radio
does not file, within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of this Notice,
either a statement of non-liability or a statement setting forth facts and reasons
why the forfeiture should be of a lesser amount, the Commission will enter an
Order of Forfeiture in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100).
21. In accordance with our established
procedures, we also state that if Eastern Education Radio does not wish to file
a statement which denies liability and, in addition, it does [**22] not wish to await the issuance of an Order,
it may, within thirty (30) days of the date of the receipt of this Notice, make
payment of the forfeiture by mailing to the Commission as check, or similar
instrument, in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) drawn payable to the
Treasurer of the United States.
BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE,
Secretary.
CONCURBY: COX (IN PART)
DISSENTBY: COX (IN PART) JOHNSON
DISSENT:
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER KENNETH A. COX, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
I agree with a
good deal that is said in the Notice of Apparent Liability, but do not agree
with the result reached.
I agree that
broadcasting differs in significant respects from books, magazines, motion
pictures and other means of communications.
I agree that this may lead the courts to apply different standards in
determining the degree of control which government may exercise over the content
of broadcast programming. And I agree
that it would be well to get this matter resolved by the courts in the near
future. But I do not agree that the
problem is as great as the majority say it is, or that it is likely to become
endemic. I do not agree that the
licensee of WUHY-FM was grossly negligent in [**23] this case or merits any more than a warning because of this
incident. And I am afraid that this
precedent may cause licensees not to carry programming they would otherwise
have broadcast, out of fear that someone will be offended, will complain to the
Commission, and the latter will find the broadcast improper. It should be noted that Cycle II has been
suspended, so that whatever of value it had to offer will no longer be
available to WUHY's audience.
At least the
majority are now listing the words, and the usage of those words, which they
regard as contrary to the public interest.
I think that is desirable, although I am sure that broadcasters are
going to worry about other words which they feel may be added to the list later
on. And I applaud the majority for
indicating that licensees will not be punished for presenting works of art or
on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events which may contain these words or
others like them. I am glad they
restrict their action to gratuitous use of words in circumstances where the
offensive language has no redeeming social value.
However, I do
not think the broadcast here involved posed a problem so serious as to justify
the imposition [**24] of a sanction for
the mere utterance of words. This
weekly series was intended as an "underground" program dealing
"with the avant-garde movement in music,
[*418] publications, art, film,
personalities, and other forms of social and artistic experimentation." It
was presented between 10 and 11 P.M. on Sunday night, and was designed to
appeal to the large college population in Philadelphia and to alienated
segments of the new generation. It
seems clear that a program with such a purpose -- a perfectly valid one, I'm
sure everyone would agree -- would be different in approach and content from
programs aimed at children, or women 30 to 40 years of age, or professional
men, or adults generally. And it seems
likely, in view of the widespread ferment among young people and their
rejection of many of the standards of their parents' generation, that not only
the ideas discussed but the language used to express them will sometimes be
offensive to the older generation. But
people who do not like the ideas or the language do not need to listen to
programs of this kind. WUHY received no
complaints about the broadcast here in question, nor did the Commission. However, we had received earlier complaints
[**25] about the 10 to 11 P.M. time
period and were monitoring the station on the night of January 4, 1970. So far as I can tell, my colleagues are the
only people who have encountered this program who are greatly disturbed by it.
I agree that the
language complained of is offensive to many and that it was gratuitous -- that
Mr. Garcia could have expressed the same ideas without using this
language. However, I think it magnifies
the impact of the words to set them out starkly, as the majority do in
Paragraph 3 of the Notice, alone and out of context. I have not read the full transcript of the broadcast, and doubt
if my colleagues have, but certainly a reading of the seven paragraphs quoted
in the licensee's response gives a different perspective of the matter. While one might wish that Mr. Garcia had
been able to express himself without using words which many people find
offensive, it would appear that he was not trying to shock or titillate the
audience. Apparently this is the way he
talks -- and I guess a lot of others in his generation do so, too. I find such poverty of expression
depressing, and am afraid it may impair clarity of though. My concern is not limited to the words
[**26] which trouble the majority. In the seven paragraphs quoted by the
licensee, Mr. Garcia uses only four words cited by the majority. But he uses the word "like" in an
improper and redundant way sixteen times, and uses "man" as a word of
emphasis seven times. These patterns of
speech seem common among today's young.
But I expect our language will survive -- as it has withstood the slang
and fads of generation after generation.
WUHY decided
that it wanted to let Mr. Garcia communicate his views in a number of important
areas to the station's audience -- a decision which no one questions. At least the station was trying to do
something more than play records and read wire news. Assuming the propriety of the station's program judgment, how
could it have achieved its desired result without getting into trouble with the
Commission? The majority suggest, in
Paragraph 7, that while Mr. Garcia may talk this way in many other places, he
should have been told that he cannot do so on radio. However, while I have had very limited contact with people of his
age and background, I am of the impression that such an approach might not have
been productive. I think one of [*419]
the reasons for their [**27] use
of such language is that it is intended to show disrespect for the standards of
their elders, which they regard as outmoded, without real basis, and
"irrelevant." It might have been difficult for Mr. Garcia to change
his habits of speech without interfering with the flow of his ideas -- or he
might simply have refused to give the interview at all on those terms. Admittedly this is speculative, but there is
no way to explore these possibilities without making some assumptions -- and I
think mine are not unreasonable.
The only other
alternative would have been to delete the offending language. The licensee, in its response to the
Commission's letter of inquiry, argued persuasively that the Garcia interview
was neither obscene nor profane. I am
glad that the majority agree that it was not obscene, and while they do not
address themselves to the issue of profanity, they certainly make no claim that
the language was profane. Instead, they
hold that the language was indecent, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1434,
which makes it a crime to "utter any obscene, indecent, or profane
language by means of radio communication." The licensee argued to the
contrary in its letter:
... [**28]
Nor was the program indecent simply because certain language not
normally heard in polite circles, was uttered.
The basic subject matters of the program -- ecology, philosophy, music
-- are obviously decent. The challenged
language though not essential to the meaning of the program as a whole,
reflected the personality and life style of Mr. Garcia. In this sense, the interview was in the
nature of a documentary. The realistic
portrayal of such an interview cannot be deemed "indecent" because
the subject incidentally used strong or salty language...
I think this position has a good deal of merit. In addition, I think that the word
"indecent" in the statute may not have a clear enough meaning to
satisfy the constitutional requirement that criminal statutes must put the public
on notice of just precisely what conduct will constitute a violation.
Having made this
contention, the licensee nonetheless said that it would not have aired the
program had it been submitted for review by the station manager, as required by
established station procedures. It went
on to say:
Licensee would
not have aired the Jerry Garcia interview because the questioned language was
not essential to [**29] the
presentation of the subject matter and its potential for offense was not
outweighed by considerations of subject matter or artistic integrity. While the program had value in terms of
subject matter and in depicting the total personality of Jerry Garcia, licensee
does not believe that these values were sufficient to warrant airing the
program, at least without deletion of the offending and essentially gratuitous
passages. n3
n3 Licensee does not believe that
editing and deletion are an automatically acceptable solution to this kind of
problem. Such deletions often damage
the entire program. Moreover, they do
not protect the sensibilities of the listener.
Indeed such censorship may be more distracting than the deleted language
itself.
A licensee is
responsible for everything broadcast over its station. WUHY therefore very properly has adopted a
policy that all taped program material containing "controversial subject
matter or language" must be reviewed by the station manager. If those who produced and broadcast the
Garcia interview had followed that procedure and the licensee had decided not
to use the interview, or to do so only after deleting the language here in
issue, that would have represented a licensee's efforts to discharge its
responsibilities in the exercise of its [*420]
own judgment. What we have here
is quite a different thing. The
majority are exercising government power in the area of speech. They have imposed a sanction -- though
admittedly a nominal one -- for a single broadcast n11 containing what they, but not the licensee, regard
as indecent matter. This action, binding
on all licensees, is obviously far different from letting licensees make their
own judgments -- even if many of them would conclude, with the majority, that
language of this kind should not be broadcast. [**30]
n11 It is important to keep in mind
that we are dealing with a single incident, within the doctrine of in re
Renewal of Pacifica, 36 FCC 147, rather than with a substantial pattern of
coarse, vulgar, or suggestive material such as was involved in Palmetto
Broadcasting Corporation, 34 FCC 101. In the last sentence of Paragraph 15, the
majority find the licensee guilty of gross negligence with respect to its
supervisory duties. I think this is an
unfair effort to bolster the action here, and that this conclusion is without
basis in the record before us. The
licensee adopted appropriate procedures for review of programming, and there is
no suggestion in the majority's opinion -- nor was any offered during our
discussion of this matter -- that it has knowingly permitted disregard of its
policies. So far as we know, this is
the time an employee of WUHY has failed to present a questionable program for
review. So far as we know, the licensee
has taken steps regularly to remind its staff of this requirement. There is no pattern of laxity or open disregard
for paper policies such as we have found in other cases where we have ruled
that licensees had been guilty of failure to enforce policies essential to the
discharge of their responsibilities.
The majority are saying that a licensee whose sound policies to detect
objectionable matter are disregarded in a single case, resulting in the
broadcast of language which the majority regard as indecent, can be subjected
to a forfeiture. The reference to
"gross negligence" is sheer window dressing. [**31]
I'm afraid it
has taken me a long time to get around to discussing an idea mentioned in the
first sentence of the third paragraph back -- the possible deletion of the
offensive words. I think the licensee
has pointed out some problems with this procedure in the footnote to the last
quotation above. It says that bleeping
out words may disrupt the program, and that it may not be too difficult for
those who dislike such language to tell what was said despite the deletion --
indeed, that this may actually emphasize the fact that language which the
licensee apparently regards as improper had been used. It seems to me that WUHY -- when put on
notice that the Commission on its own motion is challenging the broadcast -- is
saying that it would not have broadcast the Garcia interview at all. I think that most licensees who may consider
presenting similar programming in the future -- that is taped material
involving statements by blacks, students, or those who have dropped out of our
society -- will decide that if the use of words which may offend the Commission
is interspersed too regularly throughout the tape to make deletion feasible,
the safe course will be just not to broadcast the [**32] program.
While I hold no brief for flooding the air with the views of members of
these groups. I think it may be
dangerous if we do not understand what they are trying to say -- even if it
sometimes involves the monotonous use of four letter words. Some of their complaints are probably well
founded, and even if they are not, I think we need to know what troubles them
and what they are talking about doing about these matters. It may be that using radio and television to
help bridge the generation gap would be an example of "the larger and more
effective use of radio" which the majority are so eager to preserve. If, instead, we narrow our concept of the
use of radio in order to protect the sensibilities of those who seem more
concerned with suppressing words and pictures they find offensive than with
solving the problems that are tearing our society apart, I think we may find
that the majority are wrong in stating -- in Paragraph 7 -- that we can
exercise these words from radio "without stifling in the slightest [*421] any thought which the person wishes
to convey." One safe course for the timid will be simply to avoid
interviewing people who can be expected to use troublesome language, [**33]
or inviting them to participate in panels, or asking them to comment on
current developments. This may be
"safe" for the licensee but I'm not sure it will be safe for our
society.
This brings me,
at last, to my principal problem with the majority's decision, which is that I
think they are exaggerating this problem out of all proportion. It is true that in recent months we have
been receiving more complaints about the broadcast of allegedly obscene,
indecent, or profane matter, but most of these involve matters outside the
ambit of this ruling. That is, they
deal with claims that certain records contain cryptic references to the use of
drugs, that others are sexually suggestive, that the skits and blackouts on the
Rowan and Martin Langh-In are similarly suggestive, that the costumes on many
variety programs are indecent, that the dances are too sensuous, that the
performers are too free with each other, etc.
But I think I could count on the fingers of both hands the complaints
that have come to my notice which involve the gratuitous use of four letter
words in situations comparable to the one in this case. This has simply not been a problem.
Nor do I agree
that if we do not [**34] punish WUHY
for this broadcast, there is going to be such "widespread use" of the
offending words as to "drastically affect the use of radio by millions of
people," because "very substantial numbers would either curtail using
radio or would restrict their use to but a few channels." I just do not
believe there are many broadcasters waiting eagerly to flood the country with
such language on an around the clock basis in the event we were to impose no
sanction here. Indeed, if the
Commission had not decided to make a test case of this incident, I doubt if
many people would ever have heard of it.
Actually, if the majority's theory is right, they are running a rather
serious risk. If the courts do not
sustain their action, that would be a signal to the industry that it could
freely engage in the "widespread use" of four letter words which the
majority fear they are anxious to embark upon.
But I don't think many of our licensees have any desire to follow such a
course, nor do I believe that there is any great audience to be won by such
tactics. I think most broadcasters have
too high a regard for their profession and its responsibilities to fall into
the patterns the majority envisage [**35]
in Paragraphs 7 through 9.
Similarly, I
think there is a great and clear difference between presenting an occasional
late night program featuring people not on the staff of the station who use
offensive language and employing newscasters and disc jockeys and allowing them
to use similar expressions all day long.
It is one thing to permit certain elements in society to use such
language on the air so that interested members of the public can find out how
they think about various problems. It
is quite different to turn the operation of a station over to people who talk
that way. I think this, like the more
generalized claim that we are about to be inundated with indecent language, is
a figment of the majority's imagination designed to justify the intrusion of
governmental power into this sensitive area.
[*422]
I have studied broadcasting for some time, and while I think we may
expect to hear strong language on the air somewhat more often in the future as
a reflection of our troubled times, I simply do not believe there is any likelihood
that licensees will broadcast indecent language to such an extent that they
will drive millions of listeners away from radio entirely. Broadcasters [**36] make money by attracting audiences. They have developed a number of ways to win
the attention of differing segments of the total audience. I do not think that four letter words are
likely to become the format of the future, since I doubt if even people who use
such language themselves would regard it as enhancing a station's service.
Finally, I think
it should be noted that the majority have held that someone involved in this
broadcast violated a criminal statute.
This means that such person or persons can be prosecuted and subjected
to rather severe penalties. However, I
do not think this is likely to happen because I suspect that the United States
Attorney in Philadelphia has more important matters to occupy his time and that
of his staff. (See my dissent in the
Commission's letter addressed to Jack Straw Memorial Foundation, dated January
21, 1970. FCC 70-93.) I submit that the
same thing should be true of the Federal Communications Commission.
PRELIMARY DISSENTING OPINION OF
COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
"Oaths are
but words, and words but wind." -- Samuel Butler, Hudibras (1664).
What this
Commission condemns today are not words, but a culture -- a life-style it fears
[**37] because it does not
understand. Most of the people in this
country are under 28 years of age; over 56 million students are in our colleges
and schools. Many of them will
"smile" when they learn that the Federal Communications Commission,
an agency of their government, has punished a radio station for broadcasting
the words of Jerry Garcia, the leader of what the FCC calls a "rock and
roll musical group." To call The Grateful Dead a "rock and roll
musical group" is like calling the Los Angeles Philharmonic a "jug
band." And that about shows "where this Commission's at."
Today the
Commission simply ignores decades of First Amendment law, carefully fashioned
by the Supreme Court into the recognized concepts of "vagueness" and
"overbreadth," see, e.g., Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 249-50
(1967), and punishes a broadcaster for speech it describes as
"indecent" -- without so much as attempting a definition of that
uncertain term. What the Commission
tells the broadcaster he cannot say is anyone's guess -- therein lies the
constitutional deficiency.
Today the
Commission turns its back on Supreme Court precedent, see, e.g., Interstate
Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676 (1968),
[**38] citing Holmby
Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn, 350 U.S. 870 (1954), as well as recent federal
court precedent, see, e.g., Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 20, 927 (D.C.
Cir., June 20, 1969) (en banc), which invalidated statutes with similarly vague
descriptions of allegedly "indecent" speech.
[*423]
Today the Commission decides that certain forms of speech and expression
are "patently offensive by contemporary community standards" --
although neither the station nor the FCC received a single complaint about the
broadcast in question, and the FCC conducted not a single survey among the
relevant population groups in Philadelphia, nor compiled a single word of
testimony on contemporary community standards, nor attempted even to define the
relevant "community" in question.
I am aware that
there are members of the public who are offended by some of what they hear or
see on radio or television. I too am
offended by much of what I hear or see on radio or television -- though more
often for what it fails to do than what it does. I am sympathetic to the outrage of any minority group -- Black or
Puritan -- that feels its values are not honored by the society of which it is
a part. (What the [**39] Commission decides, after all, is that the
swear words of the lily-white middle class may be broadcast, but that those of
the young, the poor, or the blacks may not.) There are scenes, subjects and
words used on television which I would not use personally as a guest on camera. The words used here fall in that
category. But I do not believe I sit
here as an FCC Commissioner to enforce my moral standards upon the nation. Yet four other Commissioners do precisely
that.
Furthermore,
when we do go after broadcasters, I find it pathetic that we always seem to
pick upon the small, community service stations like a KPFK, WBAI, KRAB, and
now WUHY-FM. See, e.g., Pacifica
Foundation (KPFK-FM), 36 F.C.C.. 147 (1964); United Federation of Teachers
(WBAI-FM), 17 F.C.C. 2d 204 (1969); Jack Straw Memorial Foundation (KRAB-FM),
FCC 70-93 (released Jan. 21, 1970). It
is ironic to me that of the public complaints about broadcasters'
"taste" received in my office, there are probably a hundred or more
about network television for every one about stations of this kind. Surely if anyone were genuinely concerned
about the impact of broadcasting upon the moral values of this nation -- and
that impact [**40] has been
considerable -- he ought to consider the ABC, CBS and NBC television networks
before picking on little educational FM radio stations that can scarcely afford
the postage to answer our letters, let alone hire lawyers. We have plenty of complaints around this
Commission involving the networks. Why
are they being ignored? I shan't engage
in speculation.
Today this
Commission acts against a station that broadcasts 77 hours a week of
locally-originated fine music, public and cultural affairs, and
community-oriented programming.
Ironically, the Commission censures language broadcast by the station
that received one of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's first program
grants for its experimental program in participatory democracy, "Free
Speech." In 1969 alone, WUHY-FM received two "major" Armstrong
Awards, one of the highest achievements in radio, two awards from Sigma Delta
Chi, a professional journalism group, and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting's "Public Criteria" award -- the only such award given
to a Philadelphia station. I do not
believe it a coincidence that this Commission has often moved against the
programming of innovative and experimental stations [**41] (such as KPFK, WBAI and KRAB). I do not see how licensees (particularly
ones that rely on [*424] the help of talented volunteers) can develop
new and creative programming concepts without approaching the line that
separates the orthodox from the unconventional and controversial. I believe today's decision will deter the
few innovative stations that do exist from approaching that line.
Today the
Commission rules that the speech in question has "no redeeming social
value," although Professor Ashley Montagu, a leading authority on the
subject, believes that such speech "serves clearly definable social as
well as personal purposes." A. Montagu, The Andtomy of Swearing 1 (1967).
Today the
Commission declares that a four-letter word "conveys no thought" --
and proceeds to punish a broadcaster for speech which apparently conveys so
much thought that it must be banned.
Today the
Commission punishes a licensee for speech in order to encourage the courts to
do our work for us -- forgetting that the First Amendment binds this agency as
well as the courts. I do not believe
any governmental body can stifle free speech merely to produce a "test
case." We cannot, constitutionally, abdicate our [**42] responsibilities to the courts. Yet today this is what we have done.
I believe it is
our responsibility to adopt precise and clear guidelines for the broadcasting
industry to follow in this murky area, if we are to wade into it at all -- the
wisdom of which I seriously question. I
believe no governmental agency can punish for the content of speech by invoking
statutory prohibitions which are so broad, sweeping, vague, and potentially
all-encompassing that no man can foretell when, why, or with what force the
Commission will strike.
In Joseph
Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), the Supreme Court held that the
First Amendment protected motion pictures as well as normal speech. There, the Court invalidated a New York
statute banning "sacrilegious" films. The Court said:
This is far from
the kind of narrow exception to freedom of expression which a state may carve
out to satisfy the adverse demands of other interests of society. In seeking to apply the broad and
all-inclusive definition of "sacrilegious" given by the New York
courts, the censor is set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of
conflicting currents of religious views, with no charts but those provided
[**43] by the most vocal and powerful
orthodoxies... [It] is enough to point
out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all
religions from views distasteful to them...
If the term, "sacrilegious," is subject to
the dangers of sweeping all inclusive interpretations, what then of
"indecent"? The FCC has not attempted
even a "broad and all-inclusive definition" of "indecent,"
as the New York courts did of "sacrilegious." Rather, the FCC has
cast itself adrift upon the "boundless sea" of a search for
"indecency" without compass or polestar for guidance. We have only the obscure charts of the
orthodox (presumably represented by a majority of Commissioners) to guide us on
our way.
Groups in this
country interested in civil liberties and speech freedoms should understand
that the Commission today enters a new and untested area of federal censorship
-- censorship over the words, thoughts and ideas that can be conveyed over the
most powerful medium of communication known to man: the broadcasting
medium. To my knowledge, there are no
judicial precedents, no law review
[*425] articles, no FCC
decisions, and no scholarly thinking that even attempt to define the standards
of [**44] permissible free speech for
the broadcasting medium. Should this
case be appealed, therefore, these questions may be posed. All those who hold speech freedoms dear
should participate. It will be
regrettable if the Federal Communications Bar Association, like the big
broadcasting industry generally, once again proves itself to be more interested
in profitable speech than free speech.
We will be waiting to see if they vigorously enter an amicus appearance
in this case.
An anonymous
poet has written:
Oh perish the
use of the four- letter words Whose meanings are never obscure:
The Angles and
Saxons, those bawdy old birds, Were vulgar, obscene and impure.
But cherish the
use of the weaseling phrase That never says quite what you mean.
You had better
to known for your hypocrite ways Than vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals
be loose as an alderman's vest If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the
act, but the word is the test Of vulgar, obscene and impure.
Whatever else may be said about the words we censor
today, their meanings are not "obscure." I cannot say as much for the
majority's standards for "indecency."
In 1601, William
Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth [**45]
Night (III, iv), "Nay, let me alone for swearing." Most of the
fresh and vital cultures in our country, not the least of which are the young,
have learned this lesson. This
Commission has not.
I regret the
double standard that causes many significant matters to languish in FCC files
for years, which rushing other, more questionable matters to decision within
days. It is extraordinary that the
majority would choose to act on an issue of this consequence without even taking
the time to read, let alone carefully consider, the full dissenting and
concurring opinions of all Commissioners in this case. I may, nevertheless, take the time to
prepare such a fuller opinion in the future for the record. Meanwhile, I feel it useful to put forward
at least these views today, as the majority announces its decision. I dissent.
APPENDIX:
APPENDIX A
Excerpts from
licensee's letter of February 12, 1970:
"... During the interview, Mr. Garcia expressed his
views on ecology, music, philosophy, and interpersonal relations. [footnote omitted] Some of Mr. Garcia's
comments on these subjects are set forth below:
The problem
essentially... the basic problem is how can you live on the planet earth
without [**46] wreckin' it, right?
* * *
... like you
know a couple of weeks ago the thing was in the paper that the headline was in
the paper that there was no more clean air in the United States, period. Yeah, and it's like uh that kind of stuff is
all of a sudden comin' up real fast.
You know, and it's like it looks like that's the most important thing
going on and that nothing else is as important as that as far as I know, that
is the most important thing.
* * *
For example,
like uh I have friends who I've known since like they started college, you
know, and like now it's eight years later and you know, and they're all
Ph. Ds -- stuff like that. It's just coming out in those terms, uh, I
know quite a few of these people who have switched their major in the last year
to Ecology and that kind of s--t, because it's like really important
right. It's a big emergency going on
Okay, so -- and their approach to it is generally to get together on the level
of bodies of influence -- that is to say, governmental s--t, you know, things
like that business and so forth, and stuff like that.
* * *
But the big
thing is that it's really super, you know -- it's... it's... it definitely
looks [**47] bad outside man, When you fly over New York, it looks f----n'
rotten, man, but it's like that way every f----n' where, man, you know, and
like I'm from San Francisco, man, and there wasn't like five or six years ago
when it was like the sky was blue, crystal clear, you know; you know and that
whole thing that you hardly ever see any more, man -- you know you just hardly
ever see it any more.
* * *
What I'd really
love to do would be live on a perfect, peaceful earth and devote all my time to
music. But I can't do it man, because
you just can't do that. You know, I
mean it's a... there's a more important thing going on, that's all.
* * *
Politics is a
form and music is a form and they're both ways of dealing with people,
man. When you play music with people,
though, you're not attacking them, you know.
It isn't, it's not a competition between the two of you or the four of
you or the seven of you, or however many of you. There are -- it's like a cooperative effort which gets everybody
high, so like that's and that's of course the thing that's really a great trip
about music. It's really a great
thing. It's really a good trip, right,
and uh so like the things that that
[**48] I've wanted to see happen
and lots of other people you know it's like some way of getting people together
to do things but having it be like music and not like business and not like
politics, you know, uh just because that's a uh high watermark in a way. I mean it seems like people should be able
to do that.
* * *
If you get
together with four or five people and produce something that's greater than
yourself you know, and that also doesn't only reflect your attitude, but it's
like a little closer to the center because it has to do with more perceptions
than your own and like for a plan to work, I think, it has to be approached on
those kinds of levels and those kind of terms because uh it won't work if uh
this is a planet full of people, each of whom is in a universe of his own. Everybody has to agree to give a little, and
so forth, and so on."