Not-So-Sly Censorship

The U.S. Information Agency seems incapable of doing the right thing when it comes to American documentary films that are shown overseas. The federal courts have told the USIA three times that it is unconstitutional for it to regulate the foreign distribution of these films on the basis of their content, so the agency threatens to effectively halt their export altogether.

Under a 1949 treaty called the Beirut Agreement, foreign duties and fees are waived for educational and documentary films. To get the waiver, the films must be certified as educational by the U.S. government. Without the waiver, it is economically infeasible for these movies to be shown overseas. Foreign duties imposed on U.S. films are very high. They are geared for commercial films, which attract large audiences, and not for documentaries, which generally do not.

Under the stewardship of Charles Z. Wick, the USIA has consistently granted waivers to films that support U.S. government policies and denied waivers to films that oppose them. It is an open-and-shut case of the use of government power for censorship, as U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima has ruled twice here and as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed.

You’d think that Wick & Co. would get the message by now that it is unconstitutional for them to use their power in this patently discriminatory way. Think again. In papers filed last week in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Wick says that if his agency’s revised regulations for granting waivers are again rejected on appeal, the USIA will withdraw from the Beirut Agreement, thereby halting the foreign distribution of all U.S. documentaries. Wick argues disingenuously that the government would be unable to carry out its duty under the Beirut Agreement, which is nonsense on the face of it.

All the USIA needs to do is act honestly and certify all documentaries for the waiver. It cannot pick and choose on the basis of whether it agrees or disagrees with the content of the films. It is a simple matter. That is what the courts keep saying, and that is what they will keep saying until even Wick understands it.

Withdrawing from the treaty would be a spiteful act that would harm all documentary film makers and deprive foreign audiences of many worthwhile American films. The government should be seeking to encourage the distribution and exhibition of American films overseas. Wick’s course is at odds both with good policy and with the constitutional guarantee of free speech.