thumbnail of 
     Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies on
    the Right to Read 
  ; No. 3; Politics
Hide -
<v Narrator>This is Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies <v Narrator>on the Right to Read. This program is sponsored by the Public Library Systems of <v Narrator>Oklahoma and supported in part by a grant from the Oklahoma Humanities Committee <v Narrator>and the National Endowment for the Humanities. <v Narrator>The views and opinions expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those <v Narrator>of either this radio station or their sponsoring agencies. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music] <v Man 1>The most basic freedom we have is the freedom to pursue <v Man 1>ideas, without that, we have very little else. <v Woman 1>We do have the right of freedom of assembly. <v Woman 1>We do have the right of freedom of speech.
<v Woman 1>The Constitution says, however, that we cannot assemble <v Woman 1>or speak against the United States of America. <v Man 2>A knowledge of difference is fundamental to living. <v Man 2>It's a fear of difference that will do a society in. <v Man 3>One abridgement of our rights gone <v Man 3>unnoticed leads to another. <v Man 4>There is a difference between pure agitation and <v Man 4>the movement toward reform. <v Woman 2>I believe in the First Amendment more than I believe in God. <v Narrator>No one likes to be criticized. <v Narrator>Governments, least of all. But most of us have learned to live with criticism, <v Narrator>if not happily, at least in a kind of uneasy truce. <v Narrator>Criticism is what this program is all about. <v Narrator>Criticism of the government of the United States of America. <v Narrator>In some ways, the government is in much the same situation as its citizens
<v Narrator>when it comes to criticism. <v Narrator>No government likes being criticized, particularly when the criticism <v Narrator>challenges the ways that government keeps peace and order among its citizens. <v Narrator>The natural impulse is to use a force of law to halt that criticism <v Narrator>and to limit the spread of any information about it. <v Narrator>The question posed in this program is, how much freedom to criticize the government <v Narrator>Americans should have, and how much access to information about <v Narrator>that criticism should be available. <v Narrator>Obviously, there must be some limits. <v Narrator>But as citizens of a democracy now entering its 200th year of existence, where <v Narrator>do we set those limits? <v Narrator>How do we decide how much freedom to criticize we want and need <v Narrator>in this country? Who shall we allow to set those limits for us <v Narrator>and what standard shall we direct them to use? <v Narrator>These are not idle questions. <v Narrator>One of the aims of the National Bicentennial is to examine the American quality
<v Narrator>of life. As we leave Watergate behind us to stand on the threshold <v Narrator>of our third century, surely it is our responsibility to examine <v Narrator>also the quality of our freedoms. <v Narrator>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting <v Narrator>the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the <v Narrator>press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition <v Narrator>the government for a redress of grievances. <v Narrator>This First Amendment to our Constitution is the cornerstone of our American democracy <v Narrator>and the main guarantor of our political freedoms. <v Narrator>Without it, we would not be permitted to criticize the government or say anything those <v Narrator>in power did not like. <v Narrator>We could not gather to express our views unless the government in power first approved.
<v Narrator>Without the First Amendment, we would never see opposition editorials <v Narrator>in our newspapers nor hear any news the government did not want us to <v Narrator>hear. Without the First Amendment, Watergate would never have been uncovered. <v Narrator>And because they have no First Amendment guaranteeing their freedoms, today the <v Narrator>people of India and the people of Russia and of China and of Cuba <v Narrator>can be thrown into prison for saying or doing anything their governments <v Narrator>decide is not permitted. <v Narrator>And the people of those countries live in a world totally created by their repressive <v Narrator>leaders because they are not permitted to learn about any other ideas <v Narrator>or hear any other opinions. <v Narrator>Americans have not always had these freedoms. <v Narrator>Before our revolution, we knew what it was like to live without these rights. <v Narrator>Oklahoma City University professor Peter Denman says one of the reasons for that <v Narrator>revolution was that our forefathers decided they did not want to live in that <v Narrator>kind of society.
<v Peter Denman>The First Amendment, as all of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution <v Peter Denman>was attached to the Bill of Rights, were designed with the background of <v Peter Denman>British authority and oppression in mind. <v Peter Denman>Also in mind of the founding fathers was the belief <v Peter Denman>that our society, at least by the many of the founding fathers, that <v Peter Denman>a society which permits as many competing <v Peter Denman>notions within it is a healthier society, and one <v Peter Denman>that is less apt to be repressive, less <v Peter Denman>apt to be- to- to place power in the- in the hands of one <v Peter Denman>or even a group of people. Because you've got too many people competing, then it's built <v Peter Denman>into the notion of the entire Constitution, matter of fact. The idea of this competition. <v Peter Denman>So this is the background that many of these people who who wrote the Constitution <v Peter Denman>understood- that competition of ideas is a- another
<v Peter Denman>means of restricting repressive power, preventing the kind of thing that <v Peter Denman>happened under the British. Now the crux of it is openness <v Peter Denman>and the freedom to speak, write. <v Peter Denman>The freedom to dissent, in other words, is implied here. <v Narrator>Today, we accept the freedom to dissent is a basic American principle, but <v Narrator>it is not always easy to be quite as tolerant when it is our ideas and <v Narrator>our beliefs which are being attacked. <v Narrator>The natural reaction is to say such criticism is dangerous and should not <v Narrator>be allowed. It was even harder in 1791 when the idea <v Narrator>of political freedom was brand new. <v Narrator>Oklahoma City attorney Phil Horning says even a dedicated patriot like Thomas <v Narrator>Jefferson could find that being on the receiving end of those freedoms <v Narrator>was not much to his taste. <v Phil Horning>The First Amendment and true allegiance to its real purpose is not <v Phil Horning>a natural thing. It is something has got to be learned, fought for,
<v Phil Horning>bled for and acquired. <v Phil Horning>And I'll give you an example. In 1801 in Jefferson's inaugural <v Phil Horning>address, he said this. <v Phil Horning>He said, If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this union or to change <v Phil Horning>its Republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety <v Phil Horning>with which err of opinion may be tolerated for reason is left free to combat <v Phil Horning>it. The perfect idealistic expression of the First Amendment. <v Phil Horning>In other words, if they disagree with you, don't be offended. <v Phil Horning>Allow them to disagree with you, and they'll be an example of the err of opinion <v Phil Horning>which they hold. But when he was elected president and the Federalist Press <v Phil Horning>began to get on to him, he wrote a letter to Governor McCain of Pennsylvania <v Phil Horning>objecting to the licentiousness and lying of the federal press and saying, <v Phil Horning>I have therefore long thought that a few prosecutions of the- of the most prominent <v Phil Horning>offenders would have had a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the press. <v Phil Horning>He sounded just like Richard Nixon there, you see.
<v Phil Horning>So whenever the, uh, the offense that one takes <v Phil Horning>becomes great enough, well, then he immediately becomes convinced that a clear <v Phil Horning>and present danger exists and there ought to be a prior restraint on the criticizing <v Phil Horning>speech that he's being subjected to. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Peter Denman>I suspect whatever support there is for censorship arises <v Peter Denman>out of a desire on the part of persons, on various <v Peter Denman>points along the political spectrum to see their particular <v Peter Denman>tastes and opinions given the force of law. <v Peter Denman>This is not a phenomenon that is restricted to <v Peter Denman>any particular point on the political spectrum. <v Peter Denman>I think you find persons on the extreme left as <v Peter Denman>interested in using law to give particular force <v Peter Denman>to their views as you do those on the extreme right. <v Peter Denman>John Stuart Mill once said that we spent far too much time
<v Peter Denman>worrying about which tastes and opinions should be given the force <v Peter Denman>of law, rather than asking the more fundamental question whether <v Peter Denman>any of our particular tastes should be given the force of <v Peter Denman>law. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>How much information should we as American citizens have about our government's <v Narrator>actions? Most people would answer as much as possible within <v Narrator>reason. We obviously do not want defense secrets, for example, <v Narrator>printed in our daily newspapers where not only we, but our enemies, can see them. <v Narrator>But what if our government lies to us, or if our leaders are themselves involved <v Narrator>in illegal actions? Should we know then? <v Narrator>University of Oklahoma Professor Richard Wells says yes. <v Richard Wells>Information about how the government works, about what <v Richard Wells>politicians do, there I think if you go
<v Richard Wells>by democratic norms, I think these should be widely <v Richard Wells>accessible. And where you draw the limits. <v Richard Wells>I don't know. The old standard was clear and present danger. <v Richard Wells>Nixon's was, of course, national security. <v Richard Wells>I think we restrict information in the public sense much, much more than we should. <v Richard Wells>And every revelation about Watergate or the CIA simply convinces, <v Richard Wells>I think, more and more people that there's greater harm and restriction than not. <v Narrator>That question of who should decide what is national security and what we will hear about <v Narrator>our government is an important one. <v Narrator>Some in our country are now unwilling to trust our leaders to make those decisions <v Narrator>for us. But Oklahoma County Republican Chairwoman Nancy Atgar disagrees. <v Nancy Atgar>If they don't know, who's going to? <v Nancy Atgar>I would think someone in Washington in a highly <v Nancy Atgar>classified job would be able to
<v Nancy Atgar>ascertain what is critical to <v Nancy Atgar>national security and what isn't. <v Nancy Atgar>Again, if we've reached the point that we have no <v Nancy Atgar>one to trust and if the man at the corner drugstore is <v Nancy Atgar>best equipped to determine what's pro or con <v Nancy Atgar>for national security, then we're in a sad state of affairs. <v Nancy Atgar>It doesn't bother me that we have secrets in Washington. <v Nancy Atgar>As long as the United States of America <v Nancy Atgar>as a free country is preserved. <v Nancy Atgar>And as long as we have forces in the world and people in the world <v Nancy Atgar>who want to change our private <v Nancy Atgar>enterprise type of government, there are bound <v Nancy Atgar>to- to be secrets that have to be kept.
<v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Nancy Atgar>We have an inherent right, even before <v Nancy Atgar>the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights, we had an <v Nancy Atgar>inherent right to criticize our public officials. <v Nancy Atgar>If we think they're wrong, we have a right to <v Nancy Atgar>criticize 'em. So many Americans don't really believe <v Nancy Atgar>that anymore. And that's a very frightening thing to me. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>In the United States, the government is not the only agency involved in limiting access <v Narrator>to information. In fact, one of the major complaints of many political <v Narrator>groups is that our press is now busily engaged in managing the news. <v Narrator>They object that newspapers, television and radio stations decide what is <v Narrator>good for us to know and then suppress other points of view.
<v Narrator>Ann Savage, the president of the Oklahoma League of Women Voters, says she has been <v Narrator>dismayed by the way the state's newspapers treat women. <v Ann Savage>You get just the one side of- of some issues or not any <v Ann Savage>coverage of some issues at all. <v Ann Savage>When you look at and listen and read the news coverage here, <v Ann Savage>you, uh, get the idea that all women stay home and go to club meetings. <v Ann Savage>And this just isn't so. And I think the news media media should try and <v Ann Savage>give some coverage to other women's activities other than the club women, because there <v Ann Savage>are a lot of women out there who do work and have interests in other areas. <v Ann Savage>After a while, you do believe that, you know, some of it's deliberate. <v Ann Savage>I can't believe that the editors, for instance, of newspapers <v Ann Savage>are not aware of all these things going on, but they deliberately only give the side that <v Ann Savage>they want us to give. <v Ann Savage>I think that there are two ways that the media does this. <v Ann Savage>One is by omission, which is really censorship of, uh, certain viewpoints.
<v Ann Savage>And how can a woman make any judgment on viewpoints if they can't see both sides? <v Ann Savage>And the other, I think, is sometimes by distorting maybe not facts, but <v Ann Savage>distorting news articles. One of the things that is one of my favorite gripes is you see <v Ann Savage>a great big headline and usually it has something like women's lib, blah, blah, blah, <v Ann Savage>blah, blah. And what does it mean? <v Ann Savage>The article has nothing to do with women's lib. <v Ann Savage>So I think this this is one distortion you get by derogatory headlines <v Ann Savage>which immediately make people think, oh, those wild eyed radical women. <v Ann Savage>And yet when you read the article, it may have nothing to do with wild eyed radical <v Ann Savage>women. It may have something to do with everyday working women or everyday housewives, <v Ann Savage>for instance. <v Narrator>But on the other side of Savage's complaint is the press, which certainly has a <v Narrator>responsibility to the values of the country, which allows them so much freedom. <v Narrator>How do you report on those who challenge generally accepted opinions? <v Narrator>Or who advocate the overthrow of our government? <v Narrator>Does the press have a responsibility not only to report the news,
<v Narrator>but to avoid adding to a potentially explosive situation? <v Narrator>Tulsa Tribune publisher Jenkin Lloyd Jones says it is less a question of censorship <v Narrator>than plain common sense. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>Where do you draw the line between a legitimate concern for a <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>proper right and the line beyond which you simply <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>supply a stage for an exhibitionist? <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>This is an interesting thing. You got an awful lot of exhibitionists in this country. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>They love to be on stage center. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>They would like to contrive through their behavior or any other means <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>to get in the spotlight. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>And yet how significant are they? So when you get people who say the press is <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>suppressing their points of view with the press, I think has got to say, well, where <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>is there a really legitimate problem and where is there merely noise? <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>That's why, uh, sure you would say that I might put on page <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>23 what some person in a pressure group thinks ought to be on page <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>one. But if we overemphasize the person who calls for violence,
<v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>we get counter-violence. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>You see, I went through a race riot once. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>I was a child in this town in 1921 when the whole black section <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>in Tulsa was burned on a day and when nobody knows how many were shot. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>I know what that thing is like. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>And I know that if we would fill our newspaper <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>full of racial controversy, <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>what you would have is you've got 90 percent whites versus 10 percent blacks in Tulsa. <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>What happens if you create a condition so that the rednecks <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>react? <v Jenkin Lloyd Jones>Who loses? <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Speaker>I do think you've got to draw the line when, uh, someone <v Speaker>is speaking for the overthrow of our government
<v Speaker>and is obviously an outspoken defender of <v Speaker>a form of government, which is against everything that this country was <v Speaker>founded on. <v Speaker>I think then you're running into a fine line about what is <v Speaker>treason and what isn't treason. <v Speaker>Certainly the people who have worked to make this country great and who are <v Speaker>continuing to believe in its principles shouldn't have to <v Speaker>listen to some of this treasonous talk. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>What about this question of those who criticize the government, who would like to see it <v Narrator>destroyed or at least radically changed? <v Narrator>Do they have a right to be heard? <v Narrator>The First Amendment gives at least a conditional yes when it guarantees us freedom of <v Narrator>speech. But how much freedom of speech do we really want?
<v Narrator>California communist Angela Davis is certainly free to hold her opinions. <v Narrator>But by inviting her to speak at the University of Oklahoma, were the officials there <v Narrator>putting a stamp of approval on her ideas? <v Narrator>Or is it so important in the United States to have open access to all political <v Narrator>views that there is a public responsibility to present opposition views. <v Narrator>Republican Party executive Nancy Atgar answers no to that last <v Narrator>question. <v Nancy Atgar>I think we have to understand that a university which is tax supported <v Nancy Atgar>can't just be termed a public facility. <v Nancy Atgar>I think that by reason of its initial <v Nancy Atgar>purpose, a university which is state supported <v Nancy Atgar>is bound under our basic rights <v Nancy Atgar>in this country to reflect what the people who are paying for it <v Nancy Atgar>want it to reflect. <v Nancy Atgar>And I don't necessarily think that this is infringing on freedom
<v Nancy Atgar>of education to do this. <v Nancy Atgar>Our whole country is based on the premise that the people will determine <v Nancy Atgar>their own projected end, so to speak. <v Nancy Atgar>And I think the taxpayers had every right to rise up when <v Nancy Atgar>Angela Davis was mentioned to come to OU. <v Nancy Atgar>And certainly I think the legislature who are innately <v Nancy Atgar>responsible to the people who elect them, had every right to reflect what the <v Nancy Atgar>people felt about this. <v Nancy Atgar>And quite frankly, I had misgivings about <v Nancy Atgar>giving this woman a public hearing at the taxpayer's expense. <v Narrator>But when zv help, state representative John Monks was asked his opinion on having <v Narrator>radical speakers at our universities, the answer was quite different. <v John Monks>I certainly think so with any kind of political ideas, even though <v John Monks>they certainly should be free to expression. <v John Monks>I may not agree with them, but I defend to my death the right for them to, uh, for
<v John Monks>freedom of speech. <v John Monks>And I certainly think in order to get a wide spectrum with the college <v John Monks>students or the students in the institutions of higher learning are old <v John Monks>enough and capable to, you know, mature enough to make intelligent decisions. <v John Monks>And I think that they should be able hear all of this. <v John Monks>Just about anyone they'd want to invite. <v Narrator>But leaving aside for a moment the question of whether Angela Davis should have been <v Narrator>invited to O.U., former U.S. <v Narrator>attorney Will Burghardt says that our whole society has nothing to fear from <v Narrator>radical philosophies and might actually benefit from them. <v WIll Burghardt>I'm sure there are limits. But I- I have the personal feeling <v WIll Burghardt>that we haven't reached those limits. <v WIll Burghardt>I mean, that we could afford to have more freedom of speech than we <v WIll Burghardt>have. I think that a free society <v WIll Burghardt>must accommodate all ideas.
<v WIll Burghardt>And I think that probably the problem doesn't come <v WIll Burghardt>in assessing the ideas, but in assessing what is meant by giving <v WIll Burghardt>them access or giving them expression. <v WIll Burghardt>I think that a person's right to express his idea does not give him <v WIll Burghardt>a right to free time on TV and radio, for example, or in <v WIll Burghardt>the newspaper. But the events of the past <v WIll Burghardt>two years should show us that our system can withstand <v WIll Burghardt>more stress and strain than we thought that it could withstand. <v WIll Burghardt>And among those stresses and strains that I think it could stand would be <v WIll Burghardt>accommodation of ideas that we don't like and I don't- most of <v WIll Burghardt>us don't agree with. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>If there are limits to our freedom of access to political information,
<v Narrator>then who shall set those limits? <v Narrator>This question becomes particularly thorny when there are public funds and public <v Narrator>facilities involved. <v Narrator>Many people believe that our interpretation of First Amendment rights should be as broad <v Narrator>as possible. But they argue that when public money is involved, the <v Narrator>attitudes and opinions of the majority of taxpayers should be given preference. <v Narrator>In fact, they believe American taxpayers should actually have the final say <v Narrator>on what kind of information is available through public channels. <v Narrator>Oklahoma City management consultant Thomas Harris provides some insight into <v Narrator>this point of view. <v Thomas Harris>I like people who feel that way and say that we have good reason to say those <v Thomas Harris>things because we have such a preponderance of material in <v Thomas Harris>the press, in the publications, that come across and <v Thomas Harris>come to the attention of the kids and in the libraries that makes, really, <v Thomas Harris>the other systems appear to have some attraction, you see.
<v Thomas Harris>Our system isn't perfect. I don't know that any system is. <v Thomas Harris>And those who are idealists and who want to make it better or want something better <v Thomas Harris>know and seem only to resort to systems that have already failed, which <v Thomas Harris>are the collectivist, the centralist systems. <v Thomas Harris>And so those who say I don't want to see any more communist or socialist, <v Thomas Harris>or collectivist or central planning type of literature or <v Thomas Harris>monographs or theses that are favorable to those schemes, the reason that they <v Thomas Harris>say that is because on every every side were assailed with attacks <v Thomas Harris>on the so-called capitalist system. <v Narrator>University of Oklahoma political science professor Richard Wells challenges Mr <v Narrator>Harris his view of this decision making process. <v Narrator>Professor Wells says that criticism of our system, even radical criticism, <v Narrator>is so important that there is a public responsibility to make sure it is <v Narrator>openly available. <v Richard Wells>In my opinion, there is a positive obligation
<v Richard Wells>on the part of, say, a library in a society that professes to believe what we <v Richard Wells>profess, to provide the full range of viewpoint. <v Richard Wells>I don't think we should be deterred by the use of dirty words or expletives <v Richard Wells>or strident tones or anything like that. <v Richard Wells>I think a library, a university, a school of any kind <v Richard Wells>should provide the widest possible range of viewpoint that people who <v Richard Wells>are participants and beneficiaries of that institution are capable <v Richard Wells>of hearing if there a question of their capability, the error should be on the side <v Richard Wells>of access rather than not. Now there, it's <v Richard Wells>very difficult because these are public funds and it is <v Richard Wells>a contradiction of sorts for the public to <v Richard Wells>support views which are sufficiently strong <v Richard Wells>so as to say public authority is wrong and should be overthrown.
<v Richard Wells>There's a- Marxist says that, and more. But it is the genius, <v Richard Wells>it strikes me, of the system that it has been strong enough to support <v Richard Wells>views or to have them provided accessible <v Richard Wells>to the people. So that the system remains <v Richard Wells>a system strong enough to encourage criticism of that system, strikes <v Richard Wells>me as strong enough to survive a system that must depend on limiting criticism <v Richard Wells>of it will fail because it's attempting to remain what it can't <v Richard Wells>remain, which is the same. <v Speaker>[Patriotic music plays] <v Narrator>In this program, we have looked at some of the ways that access to information is limited <v Narrator>in this country - through government secrecy, through news management <v Narrator>and through simple refusal to hear other political opinions. <v Narrator>We've heard what some Oklahomans think and feel on the subject.
<v Narrator>Now it is time to make up our own minds about how much freedom of information <v Narrator>we want and need. <v Narrator>But before we close, let us go back for a moment to the First Amendment to the American <v Narrator>Constitution. The aim and the effect of that amendment is to protect <v Narrator>the rights of American minority opinions and through the First Amendment, the <v Narrator>founding fathers gave their implied blessing to disagreement in American politics <v Narrator>without disagreement. There would be little or no danger of repression <v Narrator>where the constitution also contains the mechanism for limiting dissent <v Narrator>when it becomes too dangerous. <v Narrator>Now, in the final analysis, it is each individual's responsibility <v Narrator>to define what those limits are. <v Narrator>And in this year of rededication to the spirit of American democracy, <v Narrator>it is well to remember that if we do not decide, someone else <v Narrator>will decide for us.
Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies on the Right to Read
Episode Number
No. 3
Producing Organization
Oklahoma. Department of Libraries
Contributing Organization
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-526-901zc7ss24).
Episode Description
This is Episode Three, "Politics". This episode revolves around the question of how much freedom of speech and ideas is desirable in the United States and where the limits to that freedom should be drawn. To this end, the host interviews various academics and community members in a discussion of the proper limits of free speech, especially when that speech contains views and opinions that criticize the government or that are so radical as to be deemed unpopular or even dangerous by some. They discuss whether publicly-funded institutions should limit free speech in accordance with the views and desires of its taxpayers, as well as the benefits of a most expansive view of permittable free speech.
Series Description
"The LIMITS TO FREEDOM' radio series explores Oklahoma's 'community standards' on the right to read. The four tapes explore the questions of what limits, if any, Oklahomans believe should be placed on access to materials about sex, politics, religion and minors/minorities. "Each tape uses music, dramatized episodes and extensive interviews with a number of different citizens to demonstrate the many different attitudes Oklahomans have on each of these issues and to explore the value systems underlying these attitudes. Each interview is balanced by another with a person whose basic perspective is different. Both interviews and narration define issues, present historical and constitutional contexts, and focus on Oklahoma community standards. "Each full track tape is 29.25 long and has been played at least 24 times on 20 different Oklahoma radio stations."--1975 Peabody Awards entry form.
Broadcast Date
Created Date
Asset type
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producer: Rosenthal, Deborah
Producing Organization: Oklahoma. Department of Libraries
Writer: Rosenthal, Deborah
AAPB Contributor Holdings
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia
Identifier: cpb-aacip-bb8bd497c14 (Filename)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “ Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies on the Right to Read ; No. 3; Politics,” 1975, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 26, 2022,
MLA: “ Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies on the Right to Read ; No. 3; Politics.” 1975. The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 26, 2022. <>.
APA: Limits to Freedom: Oklahoma's Private Values and Public Policies on the Right to Read ; No. 3; Politics. Boston, MA: The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from