Film Censorship in America

The new rules on certifying American documentary films for export repeat the fundamental flaw that a federal judge’s order had sought to solve: The rules are more an instrument of censorship than a move to facilitate the free exchange of ideas through this important and creative medium.

Under the law, the U.S. Information Agency in effect determines the tax status of a documentary by the way it classifies those bound for export. A film designated educational, scientific or cultural almost always enjoys freedom from duties and other taxes--an important benefit that often determines the economic feasibility of export. But the USIA has tended to deny those classifications for films that view U.S. life critically.

U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima found the old rules unconstitutional. We agree with him. The USIA hopes that the Court of Appeals will reverse that finding so that the old rules may be reinstated. In the meantime the USIA has imposed interim rules that seem no better, including provisions to describe some controversial films as “propaganda”--inviting limits on foreign distribution. Vague requirements and standards elude clear definition, further complicating the task of producers to win appropriate certification.

The basic problem clearly lies in the licensing procedure. Governments are tempted to discourage the exporting of films that they judge critical and negative. A substantial part of the business of the USIA is putting the nation’s best foot forward. What the agency does not seem to understand is that a good way to do that is to demonstrate the nation’s tradition of freedom by encouraging the free exchange of creative communications, including those critical of the government.

In the past, certification has been withheld from documentaries dealing with subjects like drug addiction in the United States, mining for uranium, and a film on the war in Nicaragua that the USIA said left the impression that the United States “has been the aggressor.” Such judgments, it seems to us, are more appropriate in a police state.

We welcome the opinion of Judge Tashima, and trust that it will be upheld on appeal--and reinforced as the interim USIA rules are reviewed.