Source: *Agency For International Development Et Al. v. Alliance For Open Society International, Inc., Et Al, Justice Scalia's dissent
[Start from last para on p 19 of 25 of this PDF.] The First Amendment does not mandate a viewpoint-neutral government. Government must choose between rival ideas and adopt some as its own: competition over cartels, solar energy over coal, weapon development over disarmament, and so forth. Moreover, the government may enlist the assistance of those who believe in its ideas to carry them to fruition; and it need not enlist for that purpose those who oppose or do not support the ideas. That seems to me a matter of the most common common sense. For example: One of the purposes of America’s foreign-aid programs is the fostering of good will towards this country. If the organization Hamas—reputed to have an efficient system for delivering welfare—were excluded from a program for the distribution of U. S. food assistance, no one could reasonably object. And that would remain true if Hamas were an organization of United States citizens entitled to the protection of the Constitution. So long as
the unfunded organizationremains free to engage in its activities (including anti-American propaganda) “without federal assistance,” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 212 (2003) (plurality), refusing to make use of [1.] its assistance for an enterprise to which [2.] it is opposed does not abridge [3.] its speech. And the same is true when the rejected organization is not affirmatively opposed to, but merely unsupportive of, the object of the federal program, which appears to be the case here. (Respondents do not promote prostitution, but neither do they wish to oppose it.) A federal program to encourage healthy eating habits need not be administered by the American Gourmet Society, which has nothing against healthy food but does not insist upon it.
I'm only guessing, so further to checking my guesses, please explain how to determine/deduce the right antecedent? Is Justice Scalia's pronoun use truly ambiguous here, or is my naivety the problem? For brevity, abbreviate 'government' as govt and the unfunded organisation orgn.
- its = the US government's (assistance)?
it = the US government
the unfunded organization's?
Update Dec 16 2014: How can [1.] mean the orgn? Does it only make sense for the orgn to refuse the govt assistance? Why would the govt refuse the orgn's assistance?