Judge Sets Deadline for Easing Film Export Rules

A federal judge in Los Angeles has set a 60-day deadline for the government to revise regulations on foreign distribution of domestic documentary films, rejecting claims that the move could force the United States to withdraw from an international film treaty.

U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima again disagreed with the contention of the United States Information Agency that it has the right to label certain films “propaganda,” thus creating a barrier for their distribution overseas.

Successful Challenges

The agency’s method of deciding which films are of “educational, scientific and cultural character” has been successfully challenged twice by groups of film makers. The groups have claimed that the way the USIA rates films amounts to censorship.

USIA Director Charles Z. Wick, in a prepared statement, said Tuesday that Tashima is “interfering” with his agency’s ability to carry out treaty obligations “faithfully.”

Films denied USIA certification in the past include documentaries depicting drug problems among American youths, the dangers of uranium mining and a film the agency said left the impression that the United States has been the aggressor in the Nicaraguan civil war.

Tashima declared the original guidelines unconstitutional in 1986, and last January found revised rules also to be in violation of constitutional free speech guarantees. The USIA is appealing that decision.

Wick claimed in papers filed with Tashima that the decision may require the United States to withdraw from the 1949 Beirut Agreement, which encourages the free exchange of documentary and other material. About 72 nations have signed or abide by the agreement, according to the USIA.

Tashima, in an opinion signed Sept. 9, held that any further delays will harm educational film makers, “the supposed beneficiaries of the treaty.”

Tashima also had little patience for Wick’s reference to international relations.

“The court cannot be deterred from its duty and it cannot suspend or stay the Constitution because of the threat by the head of an executive agency to ‘recommend’ that United States participation under the Beirut Agreement be terminated,” Tashima wrote.