The Journaling of Hinton 389

Interpretations of freedom of speech have varied throughout the course of history. Yet, the term is seen as a basic right in the United States because it is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The amendment states "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" (National Archives and Records Administration 2001). This means that U. S. citizens may write and speak without governmental restraint and that they have the right to seek out the writings and thoughts of anyone they choose to hear or read. In other words, the ideas expressed by Marx, Gandhi, the Koran, and Socrates all have the right to be read in the United States because "we, the citizen-voters, have authority, have legal power, to decide what we will read," and "what we will think about" (Meiklejohn 1965). Moreover, citizens can do so without U.S. Notably, the roots of freedom of speech are closely entangled with its suppression throughout history. During the Middle Ages, nation building and loyalty were political goals.

As a result, dissent was outlawed (Stevens 1982). The law of the land paralleled a literal interpretation of the Bible, making free speech and thought unacceptable. The Middle Ages promoted the belief that heretics and people possessing unique ideas were not "human being and certainly not entitled to any rights" (ibid.). During the seventeenth century one of the most well-known examples of the suffocation of expressive freedom occurred. The Church, in 1616, urged Galileo to stop promoting the idea that the sun was at the center of the universe. Many clerics were afraid of the unknown and by admitting "the possibility of a fundamental error" they feared instigating "other challenges of Church infallibility" (ibid.). As a result, a free thinker became a martyr to society. It was not until 18th century Colonial America that the freedom of speech was recognized as a shield against a despotic government. A colonial newspaper publisher, John Peter Zenger, used his journalistic power in 1734 to oppose the policies of New York Governor William Cosby (CNN Interactive 2001). Until that point in history, such dissent would have normally instigated harsh action toward Zenger.

But in 1735, Zenger was acquitted on the grounds that "truth is a defense against libel" (ibid.). This viewpoint seemingly moved to the forefront of many colonial intellectual minds, for the freedom of speech was later included in the American Constitution. The inclusion of the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, however, did not reflect a consensus opinion on the matter. The Sedition Act of 1789 certainly played a role in curbing the unhindered expression of American citizens. Limitations and interpretations of the freedom of speech have continued to evolve throughout the 20th century. The American Mercury journalist, H.L. Mencken, was imprisoned in 1926 following the argument by Boston censorship groups that his journalism was full of "scathing criticisms of American culture" and "was obscene" (ibid.). Furthermore, the Smith Act of 1940 declared that it was a crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty… of overthrowing or destroying any government of the United States by force of violence" (ibid.). This data has been written with the help of Essay Writers.

The First Amendment and the freedom of speech are important to the nonprofit or third sector because they allow "groups to organize, operate, and speak freely, all within wide limits" (Clotfelter and Ehrlich 1999). In other words, the rights of nonprofit organizations protected by the freedom of speech provide a microphone through which they can speak on behalf of various issues and populations. There are instances, however, in which boundaries are placed on the freedom of speech rights of nonprofits. In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress held the power to insist that a nonprofit organization receiving federal funds must implement programs in exact accordance with the guidelines of the government funding agency. This was the outcome of the Rust v. Sullivan Case that also emphasized nonprofits, in these circumstances, are to keep their "First Amendment right to free speech and petition" separate and distinct "from the programs supported by federal funds" (ibid.). 1) The debate surrounding Project of Government Oversights (POGO), a nonprofit watchdog organization dedicated to "exposing waste, fraud and corruption" in areas of government.