I mean: Which laws govern US agencies' domestic propaganda activities?
By now I've read about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (1938) that insures that the American public and its law makers know the source of information (propaganda) intended to sway public opinion. I've also read about the Smith-Mundt Act (1948) and its 1972 amendment, which places certain restrictions on only the USIA from engaging in domestic propaganda. So far I've not been able to find any law that prohibits for example the CIA to engage in domestic propaganda activities. (The National Security Act of 1947 simply bans the CIA from operating within the US, so that would include spreading propaganda.)
Any information on laws that ban CIA domestic propaganda is welcome.
Do you know what has become of Bill Clinton's "International Public Information" directive NSC-68? (compare http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37a0590c20fd.htm)
Thanks and best regards
The Office of International Information Programs (IIP) was established to take over some of the duties of the defunct United States Information Agency. Among those duties, as set out by Presidential Directive Decision 68 which established the position of International Public Information Secretariat, is to provide for public diplomacy initiatives in emergency situations around the world. The State Department gives the example of the war in Kosovo, when the IIP provided Internet access to refugees so they could communicate and find lost relatives. There is no indication that these changes made by the Clinton administration have been reversed. The IIP continues to perform these functions.
Note: the only information available on Directive 68 is from the State Department's public website. It may or may not reflect the complete scope and impact of the directive. It is entirely possible that this directive is filed away as classified with all of the other papers from the Clinton administration.
Posted 8/27/04 by legadillo UPDATE:
These articles from The Washington Times describe the subsuming of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) under the State Department and the creation of a replacement organization, the International Public Information (IPI), under President Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 68 (PDD68). Ben Barber, reporter for the Times, claims that some worry that although the IPI's mission is to disseminate information to foreign countries, the reorganization of the agencies creates the opportunity to use the IPI for domestic propaganda.
(Keep in mind that "The Washington Times…... was founded in 1982 as a conservative alternative to the Washington Post by members of the controversial Unification Church." 2004 "The Washington Times," Wikipedia, retrieved 8/27/04 from Wikipedia.)
Barber, Ben, 29 July 1999. Information-control plan aimed at U.S., insider says International agency to be used for `spinning the news'. 11 August 1999. USIA's end costs jobs of 2 officials Opposing change toppled top aides. 17 August 1999. IPI chief's wings 'clipped' by State, senior official says. The Washington Times. Retrieved 8/27/04, from Factiva.
Pachios, Harold, 7 October 1999. Plain English for public diplomacy. The Washington Times. Retrieved 8/27/04, from Factiva.
A Google search for "presidential decision directive 68" finds 237 hits; sampling them at random, the sites lean far right, and with varying degrees of paranoia, see in PDD68 an insidious disinformation plot out of the Clinton White House. A quick search for information regarding the Bush administration's specifically using the IPI to disseminate propaganda comes up empty.
Here's an interesting decision in 1998 on disclosing foreign and domestic information coming out of USIA:
USIA bar on U.S. broadcasts exempts transcripts from disclosure
02/23/98
WASHINGTON, D.C.--A law that prohibits the United States Information Agency from propagandizing U.S. citizens exempts the agency from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act when requesters seek records of the agency's communications outside the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington (D.C. Cir.) ruled in mid-February. (http://www.rcfp.org/news/1998/0223c.html)