Court Backs Propaganda Label on Canadian Films

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Reagan Administration may label as “political propaganda” three Canadian films on acid rain and nuclear war.

By a 5-3 vote, the justices said the label is used “in a neutral and evenhanded manner” and is not intended as censorship.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in his opinion for the court, said the federal law authorizing use of the classification for foreign-produced works “has no pejorative connotation.”

Requiring that such works be registered with the Justice Department does not violate the Constitution, he said.

No Effect of Censorship

“There is a risk that a partially informed audience might believe that a film that must be registered with the Department of Justice is suspect,” Stevens conceded. “But there is no evidence that this suspicion . . . has had the effect of government censorship.”

The case touched off an uproar in 1983 when the Justice Department designated the films political propaganda under a World War II law --the Foreign Agents Registration Act--aimed at identifying foreign propaganda.

The law was challenged by California state Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia), who planned to sponsor showings of the films to support his views.

Keene said the political propaganda label attached a stigma to the motion pictures that could damage his reputation and political standing.

U.S. District Judge Raul A. Ramirez of Sacramento agreed and barred the government from attaching the classification to the films. Ramirez said the term propaganda suggests “half-truths, distortions and omissions.”

The Administration said political propaganda, as defined in the Foreign Agents Registration Act, is a neutral term that only signifies an attempt to influence U.S. government policies.

The Supreme Court today agreed.

Stevens said, “In popular parlance many people assume that propaganda is a form of slanted, misleading speech that does not merit serious attention and that proceeds from a concern for advancing the narrow interests of the speaker rather than from a devotion to the truth.”

Can Be Completely Accurate

But, he continued, as defined in the federal law, “it also includes advocacy materials that are completely accurate and merit the closest attention and the highest respect.”