those prints. When repeated telephone requests for a response to the ACLU's request for clarification went unanswered, we filed a lawsuit on March 9, 1983. The State Department later agreed not to require Direct Cinema to place the leader on the film or provide the State Department with information on the dissemination of the film since we (Direct Cinema) were not foreign agents under PARA. Eight Minutes to Midnight is not Considered Political Propaganda Prior to distributing If You Love This Planet, we were distributing (and still distribute) a film that was completed about 18 months before If You Love This Planet was offered to us. It is important to note that this film, Eight Minutes to Midnight: A Portrait of Dr. Helen Caldicott, received an Academy Award-nomination in 1982 in the category of Best Feature Documentary. This film in some regards is similar to If You Love This Planet, in that it contains footage of Dr. Caldicott giving speeches on the nuclear issues. Unlike, If You Love This Planet, this film was produced and directed by Americans. If You Love This Planet was directed by a Canadian national, Terry Nash, Ph.D., and was funded by an agency of the Canadian government, The National Film Board of Canada. Eight Minutes was funded through a non-profit educational foundation. Eight Minutes is both a biographical portrait of Dr. Caldicott and a film that deals with the many facets of the nuclear issue. Interestingly, both films deal with the nuclear issue in the same fashion, using footage of Dr. Caldicott speaking with newsreel clips. It is ironic that two almost identical works exist and that one can be labeled by our government under FARA while the other is not. It is also ironic that on April 11, 1983 If You Love This Planet was awarded an Academy Award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the best short documentary exhibited in the United States during 1982. Propaganda Classification Precipitates Stigmatization The classification of If You Love This Planet as foreign political propaganda pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act created uncertainty among potential users (renters and long time licensees) of the film. The classification also caused Direct Cinema financial injury through the unproductive waste of its employees' time in responding to hundreds of inquiries about the meaning and effect of the classification. For instance, we had to produce and distribute approximately 3,000 flyers to attempt to clarify the legal situation involving the ramifications of the film's designation as political propaganda. Direct Cinema's sales agents received numerous calls seeking information about obtaining the film. For weeks nearly every caller asked about the status of the film. Other potential customers said that they were not sure that they would be able to obtain the film because of all the controversy surrounding it. In my opinion, based on my experience in the motion picture distribution business, the controversial classification of the film as political propaganda prevented potential customers, particularly public institutions such as schools, colleges and libraries, from purchasing or using the film. Because there are now in excess of 300 motion picture pictures dealing with the same and related subject matter as If You Love This Planet, none of which, aside from this film, have been classified by the government as foreign "political propaganda,” it was and continues to be easier for public institutions to avoid stigmatization and obtain comparable films elsewhere. In the regular course of my business, we periodically provide two types of distribution information to the producer of a particular film. To inform the producer of the volume of preview requests, we periodically forward a shipment report, which includes all copies of shipment invoices containing the name and address of the previewer as well as any amount paid. We also periodically provide royalty reports, which give the name and address of each person who rents or purchases the film and the amount of revenue generated by the transaction. Under our distribution contract with the Film Board, we are obligated to report to the Film Board on a quarterly basis concerning the number of prints reproduced and distributed by Direct Cinema. Reports are due generally within thirty days after the end of December, March, June and September. In fairness to potential users of If You Love This Planet, we feel bound to inform them that their names and other information concerning their interest in the film are disclosed to the Film Board and we cannot guarantee that they will not be reported to the Justice Department as well. At least a dozen customers specifically asked us not to report their names when they placed the order with us, and many of them asked whether they had to use their correct names. Direct Cinema's sales representatives, some of whom have over fifty years of experience in the motion picture distribution business, report fewer institutional sales in If You Love This Planet than they would otherwise expect in a documentary film which received an Academy Award. In my opinion, this is due to the controversy surrounding the classification of the film as political propaganda, and the concerns that users will have their names reported to the Justice Department. It is, of course, impossible to know exactly how many potential customers have never contacted us due to their desire to avoid the entire controversy. Stigmatization: Impact Upon Direct Cinema Because our company is dedicated to the distribution only of high quality, artistic and educational works, we are injured by the stigmatization of If You Love This Planet as foreign "political propaganda." Although we have not attached a leader to any of our prints of the film because the State Department chose not to require such action, the publicity surrounding the film has been such that most potential viewers and buyers are aware of the film's classification by the U. S. Department of Justice. We are therefore stigmatized as distributors of foreign "political propaganda,” a term which carries negative connotations to the American public and undermines our reputation as distributors of intelligent, meaningful films. This stigmatization is also likely to effect Direct Cinema's relationship with independent producers of films and with businesses and organizations considering a relationship with Direct Cinema. Some organizations do not want business dealings with companies that are controversial or that have been labelled as “political." We are also greatly concerned that the publicity and stigmatization surrounding Direct Cinema as a result of the Justice Department's action will be damaging to current discussions regarding the potential acquisition of Direct Cinema by another company that does not want such publicity. Over the last few years there have been two specific cases where we were not awarded contracts to handle the distribution of films. In each case I was confidentially advised that the organizations (which was in one case a conservative non-profit educational organization and in another case a large corporation) that we were "..too controversial" to handle their films. It is also likely that we have not even been offered certain films to distribute because of this reputation. The maintenance of the name of our company on a public Department of Justice list as a purveyor of foreign political propaganda will add to the injury we have already incurred. Foreign political propaganda has connotations of "communism" to many Americans. In the future, this designation could be used against us, just as in the "McCarthy era" many American citizens found themselves in jeopardy for having allowed "communist propaganda" into their homes. Impact of Foreign Agents Registration Act Upon United States We believe that the no agency of the U.S. Government should be empowered to classify artistic and/or creative works such as films, books, video tapes, plays, newspapers, etc. as Political Propaganda. We are not politically naive about the dangers from which FARA is intended to protect us, yet we feel that there is a sensible middle position. Clearly, foreign governments or foreign business should not be permitted to involve themselves in our open and democratic political process. To allow foreign representatives to pour funds into the campaigns of politicians, or to influence American public opinion or American elections with messages that hide the identity of their sponsors would jeopardize the nation. We believe, however, that works funded by foreign governments and distributed by those governments in the United States or their agents or assignees should be distributed without any restrictions. Nonetheless, we feel that there should be one requirement for the distribution of these works in the United States: each work must clearly identify the producer or supporter of the work as having been funded in part or in whole by a foreign government or organization. If You Love This Planet was clearly labeled as a production of The National Film Board of Canada. This organization's logo, a person whose arms form an eye, is known to hundreds of millions of people world-wide. This symbol, as well as the Film Board's name, can be found at the beginning and conclusion of each copy of work produced by the Film Board. We believe that as long as the origin of the work is clear no other label should be necessary. The American public can determine what is the truth, what is political propaganda. Looking back on this period in our company's history, we believe that this law did an enormous disservice to all Americans, to our customers, and to millions of school children who never got to see and discuss this important, inspiring and moving work. People were intimidated by the classification of this film under the Act. Our customers from public institutions who routinely find their selection of films the subject of public scrutiny chose not to purchase this film to avoid controversy. The law, in fact, relegated a number of films to the cinematic equivalent of a black list. This is a shame. Americans have the sense to judge what they see and hear. Dr. Helen Caldicott's speech is deeply moving and affecting. It raises serious questions that demand reflection and discussion by all Americans. The films dealing with acid rain, which were also initially deemed propaganda, raise the same questions that have recently been explored in publications such as Time, Scientific American, Newsweek, National Geographic, The Smithsonian and others, as well as discussed by high government officials of both the United States and Canada. There is no question that we need an informed and enlightened electorate for our democracy to work. The classification of a foreign work as political propaganda will ultimately inhibit the intelligent and free expression of our democracy. National Film Board of Canada If You Love this Planet Dr. Helen Caldicott on Nuclear War IF YOU LOVE THIS PLANET warns us that time is running Dr. Caldicott traces the development of atomic weapons, As her audience sits mesmerized, Dr Caldicott paints a fright- Interspersed with Dr. Caldicott's lecture is archival footage The message of IF YOU LOVE THIS PLANET is clear: Disar- The reason that Dr. Caldicott is such an effective speaker on Programming Suggestions: EIGHT MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT. A Portrait of Dr. Helen Caldicott also is available from Direct Cinema Limited EIGHT megaton bomb" when in fact she MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT explores many aspects of Dr. Cal- Directed and edited by Terri Nash had intended to say a "thousand." FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: DIRECT CINEMA LIMITED Post Office Box 69799 Los Angeles, California 90069-9990 Telephone: (213) 652-8000 Mr. KASTENMEIER. It should be clear that the difference is that Ms. Jones had a problem with the film that was produced in this country and sent abroad Ms. JONES. It was not sent abroad. No. Mr. KASTENMEIER. It was not? Would have been. Mr. Block relates problems in bringing films into this country. I don't know that very many people know that within the Justice Department there is a small subbureau, almost invisible, that has one or more people who do this-who literally censor films. You would believe that, I'm sure, about certain other totalitarian countries, but you might wonder why the United States would need to censor a film as propaganda, with all that that entails. Something dealing with the environment, the planet, acid rain, or even nuclear war-in any event, something that expresses a different point of view. I would like to now call, if I may, on Dr. Robert L. Park, Director of the Office of Public Affairs for the American Physical Society. Dr. Park. STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. PARK, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Dr. PARK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to express the deep concern of the American Physical Society over impediments to the free exchange of scientific information. These are concerns that are shared overwhelmingly by the scientific community. We heard some of these views expressed in the previous panel by Professor Farley. We have a number of recommendations included in my written testimony, which I will not go through for you now, in the interest of time, but let me simply emphasize what I consider to be a growing concern, certainly of the American Physical Society. As cold war tensions are giving way to concern over our competitive failure in the global marketplace, the Government's notion of sensitive information based on national security considerations is being expanded now to include something called commercially valuable information. The chauvinism that once attributed every Soviet advance to technology stolen from the West now seeks an explanation for our competitive failure in the myth of a one-sided flow of technical secrets to the Pacific rim. Our effort to regain the lead in world trade has also begun to distort the nature of the scientific enterprise in the United States through the increasing emphasis on commercialization of academic research brought about by Government policy. The emphasis on professional reputation that once ensured a culture of openness among university researchers is unfortunately being replaced by a culture of commercial entanglements as the universities become directly involved in business ventures. We feel it is extremely important that the prime function of universities, as creators and transmitters of knowledge, be preserved. Present policies, both in the national security area and in the matter of commercially valuable information, fail to recognize the |