Justices See No Threat of Censorship to Foreign Ideas : Court OKs Propaganda Label for Films

The government may officially label foreign films as “political propaganda,” the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, concluding that a 1942 law designed to track subversive information coming into the country does not limit the right to free speech.

On a 5-3 vote, the high court said that Reagan Administration officials acted legally when they used the law to designate as “propaganda” three Canadian government films on acid rain and nuclear war.

While this court case symbolized for some a battle against official censorship of foreign ideas, the court majority treated it as a largely semantic controversy.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, said that Congress used the word “propaganda” merely to describe material that carried a political message. Though the word today usually suggests material that is “slanted,” the law defines “propaganda” in a way that “has no pejorative connotation,” Stevens said.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said that the Administration felt “vindicated” by the court’s ruling.

Want Laws Rewritten

Meanwhile, congressional liberals said the decision will spur their efforts to rewrite several laws that they believe are outdated and restrict the free flow of ideas.

The case arose in 1983 when California state Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia) challenged the government label attached to the Canadian government-produced films entitled “Acid from Heaven,” “Acid Rain: Requiem or Recovery,” and “If You Love this Planet,” which concerned nuclear war. The Justice Department, acting under the Foreign Agents Registration Act that allows U.S. review of foreign government produced films, previously had decided that the films carried an overtly political message.

In his suit, Keene, who showed the films in the state Capitol in Sacramento, said he feared that “his personal, political and professional reputation would suffer” because he would be linked unfairly to foreign propaganda.

District Judge Agrees

U.S. District Judge Raul A. Ramirez agreed. Since the films were “officially censured by the government,” they are “unavailable to all but the most courageous,” Ramirez said in a 1985 order striking down the law. The Reagan Administration appealed. In reversing the lower court ruling, Stevens described the law as essentially harmless. “The statute itself neither prohibits nor censors the dissemination of advocacy materials by agents or foreign principals,” he wrote. Sen. Keene could even remove the labels from the films before showing them, he noted.

Stevens conceded that some viewers might consider a film “suspect” if it were labeled as propaganda by the government, but he concluded that the risk was not serious enough to limit “the scope of Congress’ right to speak (using) this particular choice of language.”

Dissenters Fear Restriction

Dissenting in the case (Meese vs. Keene, 85-1180), Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall said that the “practical effect” of the labels is to “taint the message” of the film and, ultimately, to restrict “political speech” in violation of the First Amendment.

Keene, the state Senate majority leader, called the high court ruling a “severe blow to the First Amendment.” He told a press conference in Sacramento that Congress now should repeal parts of the Foreign Agents Registration Act that impose “burdens on people who wish to communicate information.”

“It now rests with the Congress to redress the blow to liberty dealt by this Administration, its attorney general and five members of the Supreme Court today,” Keene said. He charged that the label “political propaganda” in no way expresses a neutral statement and instead unfairly “weighs down and stigmatizes” information about which Americans can form their own judgments.

Others Downplay Impact

But several Washington attorneys who defend free speech cases downplayed the impact.

“It is a very narrow decision,” said Morton Halperin of the American Civil Liberties Union. “We regret the outcome, but we’re pleased the opinion was restricted to the terms of this act.”

Justice Department spokesman Terry Eastland said that officials of the department were pleased that the high court upheld the Administration’s reading of the law. He added, however, that the Administration believes the law should be changed, perhaps by substituting the phrase “political advocacy” for “political propaganda.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is sponsoring legislation to revise both the World War II law on “political propaganda” and the Cold War-era McCarran Act, under which the Administration has denied visas to foreign visitors linked to leftist causes.

‘Some Action This Year’

“I’m hopeful we will get some action this year,” he said. “These laws let the government stand between the American people and the free flow of ideas, and I don’t think the government ought to be in that position.”

Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the ruling. No reason was given, but he had ruled in a nearly identical case before his appointment to the Supreme Court as an appellate judge.

In other actions, the court:

--Ruled that an accused violator of the federal Clean Water Act is entitled to a jury trial. The unanimous decision threw out a $22-million penalty against a Virginia man and could add a hurdle to federal enforcement of environmental laws (Tull vs. U.S., 85-1259).

--Ruled that federal courts have no right to stop a railroad union from “secondary picketing” at other railroads (Burlington Northern vs. Brotherhood of Maintenance Employees, 86-39).