This cause came on to be further heard at this sitting, and after stipulation by counsel; and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill be and hereby is dismissed. STATEMENT OF VINCENT T. WASILEWSKI, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS This statement is presented by Vincent T. Wasilewski, president of the National Association of Broadcasters. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is a nonprofit corporation whose members include 2,099 AM, 871 FM, and 449 television stations, and all the national radio and television networks in the United States. The NAB supports the purpose of H.R. 8635, introduced by Chairman Harris, and of identical bills introduced by Representatives Rivers of South Carolina, Tunney, Michel, Murhpy, and Springer. The purpose of the proposed legislation as stated is to insure "that the channels of interstate commerce are free from fraudulent descriptions or depictions of professional boxing contests." While concurring wholeheartedly in this objective, we urge that the provisions in section 2 of the proposed bills which would impose a prior restraint on broadcasting or on any other medium of communications be deleted. NAB recommends that the Congress examine all aspects of professional boxing to determine whether or not a need for remedial legislation exists. If the Congress should determine that racketeering, bribery, collusion, coercion, or any other form of impropriety exists in this sport, it should take such action as it may deem prudent to protect the public. We believe it to be the proper function of the Congress to prevent anyone from using the channels of interstate communication for racketeering or other illegal acts. Sanctions, however, should be levied against the actual wrongdoers-not against the broadcaster who may have innocently and without any knowledge aired the particular event. Section 2 of the bill should be amended to delete the proposed grant of power to a Commission to issue an order prohibiting interstate transmission of a communication by wire or radio. Any such exercise of authority would amount to a prior restraint and would, therefore, contravene the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Certainly the prohibition of free speech on a determination "that it is likely" that the message will be fraudulent would be constitutionally invalid. While we do not believe that prior restraint can be justified under the Constitution in a case of this kind, we believe that it would be virtually impossible for the Commission to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty before the event that a professional boxing contest had been fixed. It would be far better to rely upon criminal penalties that have withstood the test of time than to seek to impose restrictions upon speech. Broadcasters share the interest of the public and of the committee in the preservation of the integrity of sporting events. Broadcast licenses are determined that their programing shall be of high moral character and in no way tainted by fraud. If the Congress can insure that professional boxing is free from impropriety, it will insure the integrity of broadcasts of professional boxing matches. Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, M.C. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ATHLETIC COMMISSION, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am writing to you at the direction of the California State Athletic Commission to express our continuing interest in Federal legislation on boxing, and in the hearings that we understand will be held before the House Interstate Commerce Committee next month. Since 1959, we have consistently expressed our belief that a Federal law is in the national interest and is a necessity if boxing is to be reestablished as a worthwhile sport. The intervening 6 years have fully confirmed our views that a Federal law is the only possible solution. We participated fully in the previous hearings before the Senate Committee, and we are anxious to present our views in detail and have witnesses appear before the House committee. Numerous examples can be given where a State has conducted an extensive examination and found an applicant undesirable in some respect; this person is denied a license, however, he soon reappears in another State conducting business as usual with complete impunity. Thus, those jurdisdictions which attempt to eliminate the undesirables in boxing soon find themselves eliminated from consideration for any of the big boxing attractions. The recent Clay-Liston fiasco is another case in point. As soon as Massachusetts attempted through its legal representatives to investigate the promoters of the fight, the promoters promptly took the fight o another Sate. Few athletic commissions are able to conduct proper investigations when this threat of withdrawal is made. Most commissions are supported by taxes on the gate receipts of the boxing events held within their State or community, thus the very fights which might be controlled by hoodlums also are the very fights which the local commission is most desirous of having. Thus the time when the commission should be scrutinizing the promotion is also the time when the commission is under extreme pressure to overlook irregularities. Some years ago the California Commission commenced an investigation which culminated in the conviction of some of the biggest hoodlums in boxing. None of these men were licensees of the California Athletic Commission, and only one or two were licensees of any Commission. Yet it was generally conceded that these men had a tight control over boxing, and some say they still do from their prison cells. The point is, these men were able to travel from State to State with complete impunity, for whenever one State started any inquiry, the problem was solved by the simple expediency of leaving the State. The only thing a particular State got for its efforts was the refusal by the hoodlum to let his boxers box in that State; even today, there are certain boxers who do not box in certain States merely because their manager or adviser is not welcome in that State. Obviously, these factors tend to discourage all the legitimate commissions from properly regulating boxing, and as a matter of fact those States which welcome everybody reap the benefits. The California Athletic Commission is therefore desirous of seeing Federal legislation in this field since it is obvious that the States cannot and will not take the necessary action. To this end, if there is anything that you feel the California Athletic Commission could do by way of support for your bill, or any of the other worthwhile bills now pending in Congress, please advise us for the commission is most anxious to assist in any manner possible. Very truly yours. JACK W. URCH, Executive Officer. Hon. OREN HARRIS, M.C., STATE OF COLORADO, STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, Denver, Colo., June 30, 1965. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I feel highly honored by this invitation to testify on July 6, 1965. I previously testified in Washington joining with Jack Dempsey, Senator Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado, Hon. W. Warren Barbour, senator of New Jersey and many others that testified to repeal legalizing of transportation of prizefight films. The was on S. 2047, Congressional Record, May 25, 26, 1939. This letter is written with the main desire to be of some assistance in arriving at a solution for this rotten problem. We're proud to say that Colorado was the first governmental entity in the world to bar Cassius Clay and Sonny Liston from any exhibitions in this State. We're hopeful that someday we will have jurisdiction over piped-in television, moving pictures, and other public demonstrations of these frauds. If the pictures were not allowed to cross the State lines, other than the State in which they originated this would eliminate any phony boxing shows. People only go to the arena to see real boxers, not television actors. I'm sorry that I will not be able to be there July 6, but may, at a later date, be able to meet you in Washington. Give my regards to Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney. Respectfully yours, EDDIE W. BоHN. |