| Abstract: | Provisions in government funding agreements with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) may constrain the ability of these organisations to contribute to political debate. NGOs perceive risks to their funding if they criticise government policy. Such organisations play a significant role in the democratic process, and this article examines the applicability of the constitutional freedom of political communication to ‘gag clauses’. Australian courts have not considered the constitutional freedom in this context, but the Supreme Court of the United States has considered the question in relation to the First Amendment. The article shows what can be learned from American jurisprudence and Australian case law in order to challenge such provisions. 政府与非政府组织的资助协议中的条款约束了这些组织进行政治辩论的能力。非政府组织如果批评政府的政策就会感到资助受到威胁。非政府组织在民主过程中扮演了重要的角色,本文政治探讨了交流的宪政自由能否适用于“钳口条款”。澳大利亚法庭没有处理过此类宪政自由的案子,不过美国高等法庭倒是处理过和第一修正案相关的问题。本文分析了可以从美国的司法以及澳大利亚的案例法中学到什么,以挑战这类条款。 |
