Anti-Colonial strugglers include the people who were against the colonial rule in Kenya and India. They organized themselves in groups that led the rebellion to colonialists and waging guerrilla warfare to the colonizers.

The groups resisted the arrival of the colonizer and they were fighting for self-independence and social injustices by the colonizers and group like Irua ria Atumia among the Kikuyu community groups that resisted the British rule.

Other groups that resisted the colonial rule included the Mau Mau. The Mau Mau Rebellion waged a resistance to the British rule in Kenya and their efforts led to independence in Kenya.

Both Kenyan and Indian icons that resisted colonialism include Deaden Kimathi Waciuri who was born on October 31 1920 and died on February 18, 1957. He was a rebel Kenyan leader who fought the British colonization.

Others include Gopal Singh Chandan (1898-12969), Ramogi Achieng Oneko (1920-2007), Bildad Kagia, Kungu Karumba, Fred Kubai, and Paul Ngei (18 October 1923-15 August 2004).

Others were Pio Gama Pinto (March 31, 1927-February 25, 1965, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga (1911-1994) and Jomo Kenyetta (1849-1978) as the first President of the Republic of Kenya were among the icons in the anti-colonial strugglers in Kenya.

The British rulers also colonized the Indians and the Indians opposed the British rule. The anti- colonial groups in Indian waged resistance to the British rule by organizing civil disobedience and negotiations, Gandhi was the negotiator between the British and the Indian people.

Among the Indian icons that led into the anti-colonial struggle include Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi known to the world as Mahatma Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) who is regarded by his countrymen as the father of nation, Jawaharlal Nehru (14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) as played a big role in liberating Indians from British colonialist to self independence.

Technorati Tags: british colonial rule, east africa, kenya

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, provides the strongest guarantee of free speech in the world. Unlike people in many other countries, Americans are free to criticize each other and government officials in language both fair and foul, to engage in racist or other hateful speech, and to use expletives and other bad language in public. In some states, like California, they may even exercise their right to free speech on other people’s private property. Americans are very proud (some foreigners would say inordinately) of their right to free speech; most of them feel that it encourages a strong free press which regularly cleanses corruption out of American government (e.g., Watergate) and thus ensures its unique stability.

By the early years of the republic when the U.S. system of checks and balances was devised, a daring journalistic community had already become established. A bold and scrappy press was an influential force in denouncing the rule of an English King and leading Colonial America into its revolution against the British Empire. With journalistic freedom protected in the 1791 Bill of Rights, the press became an assertive force during the first decades of nationhood. The U.S. media today is frequently known as the Fourth Estate, an appellation that suggests the press shares equal stature with the three branches of government created by the Constitution. But although the press was not established as an institution by the U.S. constitution, today many citizens believe that it constitutes a branch of U.S. government. Numerous debates still rise regarding press’s freedom to act as a watchdog of the American government. Is it protected by law?

Several critical court cases have been landmarks in establishing the rights of the press to pursue information and to publish government documents or derogatory information about public figures. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the media should have some First Amendment protection from the laws of libel for fear that lawsuits and possible monetary damages might disincline media owners from fully reporting on public matters. In order for a public figure to win a defamation case against a media defendant, the plaintiff must show “actual malice,” which the courts have defined as knowledge that the published statement was false or as “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”.

In our time, American free speech law has become an issue of international appeal since the Internet rose as another main medium of communication. Probably, this is because many banned groups can take advantage of Internet service providers based in the United States to send their messages around the world, even where such speech is banned. U.S. courts will not enforce foreign judgments contrary to domestic public policy, including the liberal U.S. policy on free speech. As for the U.S. perspective, many Americans dislike attempts by common law jurisdictions to extend their personal jurisdiction to American defendants whose alleged defamatory speech acts occurred over the Internet and were not targeted towards those jurisdictions. If the First Amendment cannot protect them, what else can? Is diplomacy a solution? The fact remains that political and social scientists seem to have set off in unknown waters.

Kadence Buchanan
http://www.articlesbase.com/affiliate-programs-articles/does-the-first-amendment-always-protect-us-media-58303.html