Our constitution, citizens beloved amendments. One of the sources used to find information on this research was a website called “JIAS” (Journal of the international aids Society). Overall, in this source I will find information regarding the implementation of PEPFAR’s anti-prostitution pledge. Out of this I will find the implications used for successful HIV prevention among organizations working with sex workers, to show how the government simply cannot gag organizations speech. Many may know the united states as the country of the free we must abide by our constitution. My second choice of article was published by “PLoS Med” (PLOS Medicine). This article helped me find information on how the First Amendment provides citizens with our power of freedom, but the main thing from this article was how citizens must become away we need our first amendment, because without it we would not have the right to speak, nor by free choice, or in favor of the government’s position. The US Anti-Prostitution Pledge shows us the challenges that come with the First Amendment affecting Public health priorities. However, when our freedom of speech is abridged it takes away from other rights that each citizen is guaranteed, everyone needs the right to privacy.
Fair judicial process may not always be the case, as shown in this court case. One argument provided in Oyez website I came with a conclusion that the government may not command fealty to their viewpoint, nor controlling organizations speech outside of programs. If an individual or an organization expresses a different viewpoint than the government’s, they cannot be punished by having certain opportunities withheld. Although, The First Amendment provides constitutional rights to protect against this potential abuse of power, as presented in the court case “Agency for International Development v. Alliance”, open society Inc. Organizations may be privately funded, interfering with the respondent’s viewpoint in exchange for participation in a government-funded program is an example of violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which assures freedom of expression. A government may not gag on an organization private speech, nor have authority over an organizations program, because targeting a viewpoint violates the free speech aspect in the united states policy requires all organizations that receive HIV/AIDS funding to openly oppose prostitution. The government must address the epidemic of HIV and AIDS this is subjected to an anti-prostitution clause.
Keywords: First Amendment, civil rights, viewpoints, funding, HIV/AIDS
United States court case, Alliance for Open Society International v. U.S. Agency for International Development, shows us the way the case handled conditional speech, showing the reader the protections provided under the U.S. Constitution. In the First Amendment Encyclopedia website, author Ronald Kahn states that the, “Supreme Court has generally supported such restrictions on government funding, even when those restrictions may stop or have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of government employees” (Kahn,2003). Not only did this affect artists, writers, and organizations, but it comes to show how in misappropriating money these challenges arise to the movement on limit the speech of those that they are funding. The objective of the case was for respondents not to promote prostitution or approving of it, simply wanting to be free in their own programs, as well as participating in the policy conferences. Some example of funding may provide, preliminary injunctions on speech. The oral argument on Oyez website David W. Bowker argues, “The policy requirement is being used after organizations have been selected, meaning now that the government has selected an organization; your belief is in their viewpoint not saying anything with those private funds” (Oyez, pg.?). The supreme court can never command fealty to their viewpoint, because being able to control any organizations private speech outside of a program, this is an example of limitations the movement needs, the government cannot be seeking to suppress speech, or disfavor viewpoints, even in the context of subsidization. This brings to the case a rise on why have an affirmative condition that requires espousal of a policy; the policy requirement requires grantees to profess a personal belief, reframing from certain private speech outside their view point and their programs. In oyez, chief justice John G. Roberts, Jr states that, “the government is just picking out who they may find appropriate in partner to assisting the project” (Oyez, pg. 19). In defense to this, the government should not be picking organization with which to work who self-identify as having views that are commensurate with the governments views that are commensurate with the government’s views. In result of this they will be reliable in carrying out the government’s program.
In developing countries, we tend to see Malaria and HIV as the two most important global health problems of developing countries. In the case one argument present in defense, David w. Bowker states “His clients provide services in the fight against HIV/ AIDS, things such as preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Tanzania, caring for orphans of aids victims in Kenya, and providing HIV/ support services in places like Vietnam” (Oyez pg.26). In 2003, congress enacted the United states leadership against HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis, and the Malaria Act. Through the act, government funding may address the HIV and AIDS pandemic which has been subject to an anti-prostitution clause. According to the website, “JIAS” (Journal of the international aids Society), “This Act of Congress addresses one of the most urgent needs of the modern world” (Masenior,2007). As a result, this may be known as a colloquially “pledge”, this pledge requires aid recipients to adopt an organizational policy which clearly opposes prostitution. The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief says that, “We support more than 14 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral treatment”, This is compared with the only 50,000 people who were on treatment in sub-Saharan Africa when PEPFAR began (“PEPFAR: Accelerating Progress Toward HIV/AIDS Epidemic Control,” 2018).I believe the government violates the First Amendment by funding organizations to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS only if they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking In addition, to this those who agreed to receive PEPFAR funds were required to state in writing that all activities supported by PEPFAR would not encourage or condone prostitution. Overall, the government can control speech and conduct within its program, this is exactly what happened in the case rust. The pledge was accompanied by a second restriction forbidding the “promotion of prostitution” by grant recipients. This second restriction has been presented by the US administration as a mechanism to prevent the promotion of prostitution and human trafficking through its donor monies.
Summary of the Court Case
Taking into account that just because the government may fund an individual’s program that means there will always be manipulation to subsume the challenged condition, in the case of ‘Agency for international development v. Alliance for open society international’ using the website Justia supreme court , “the Court held that the prostitution Policy Requirement fell on the unconstitutional side of a hard line saying this case is not about the Government’s ability to enlist the assistance of those with whom it already agrees. It is about compelling a grant recipient to adopt a belief as a condition of funding” (Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S.). The main object here was to simply have the control around the program, and recipients being free outside the program as well. The policy act was not being enforced, because the department of justice concluded that this policy is unconstitutional. Under the challenged law, an addressee cannot support the belief dictated by the Policy Requirement when spending federal funds, and then turn around and proclaim a contrary belief, or claim neutrality, when participating in activities on its time and dime not using the money funded. The government says there has to be some Germanness between the program and what the governments requirement might be for example in the oral argument David W. Bowker says “ If there is a treat to the government’s program and they need to take action in order to protect its program, prevent the message from being grabbled or distorted” the government’s case will always be the strongest. In so doing, it violates the First Amendment and cannot be sustained, one profession that was being required was to profess the allegiance to the government.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. and some other domestic funding recipients wanted to remain neutral on prostitution. Overall, The Supreme Court Affirmed in a 6-2 decision. However, it was stated that within the Policy Requirement recipients of federal funds must clearly agree with the government’s viewpoint in the policy to oppose prostitution. Although, the First Amendment forbids the government from telling people what they must say. Therefore, if the Policy Requirement were a direct regulation of speech, it plainly would violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides constitutional rights to protect against this potential abuse of power, as presented in the court case “Agency for International Development v. Alliance”, open society Inc. Organizations may be privately funded, interfering with the respondent’s viewpoint in exchange for participation in a government-funded program is an example of violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which assures freedom of expression. In addition to this, only question remaining was whether the government nevertheless may impose that requirement as a condition of federal funding. In response we found that The Court held that it cannot impose the condition of funding. Most importantly the Spending Clause granted Congress choice to fund private programs or activities “for the general Welfare”. This not only includes authority to limit the use of such funds, but it also emphasizes that it is a party’s objects to those limits on funding, the aftermath would be to decline funds. Past Supreme Court cases have distinguished between conditions that define the limits of the government spending.