국가의 기금지원 조건과 표현의 자유 - 미국 연방대법원 판례를 중심으로 -

The government may provide funds for certain policies or programs and some necessary conditions may be attached to them. However, such conditions shall not be permitted if they infringe constitutional rights, especially freedom of speech, beyond the realization of programs, and this may be a unconstitutional burden. In the U.S., various constitutional issues have risen in regards to the restriction of speech through government subsidies and the related precedents of the Supreme Court have been reviewed. The restriction of speech through government subsidies may prohibit certain speech as a condition of funds, but it is also possible to compel certain speech through the funds. This article discusses the issue of freedom of speech based on the case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (AOSI I) that considered the latter. In the 2013 case, AOSI I, the Supreme Court invalidated a condition of funding requiring grant recipients to adopt a particular belief. This article first analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision in AOSI I, explaining the majority’s reasoning in the case. Then, it reviews the constitutional issues that engendered controversies. The AOSI I showed that compelled speech is a major infringement of freedom of speech as unconstitutional as compelled silence. The current study is applicable to Korea as the government attaches constitutional limits related to freedom of speech when providing funds for government policies.