Freedom of speech doesn’t mean government paid “free-for-all”

There is a problem with understanding the First Amendment right to free speech. Interest groups laboring to make their sexual material available free to the public are laboring to force government entities to underwrite their agenda with cash.

This is the issue: where in the Constitution does it appear that free speech means government entities pay for it? Nowhere.

Since most libraries became government-funded, the so-called right to stock the shelves with books, movies, or magazines that encourage engagement in anti-cultural (amoral), violent, or extreme behavior was not included.

Private libraries have the latitude to purchase materials of their choice and make it available to whomever they please because the First Amendment applies. Librarians are employed by that private entity and must follow the owner’s guidance, which may include purchasing aberrant sexual or violent materials for loan.

Public libraries, including those on the campuses of public schools, are sourced with public funds and aren’t free to stock materials according to a public employee’s, such as a librarian, teacher, or administrator’s, peculiar preference. Standards are set by the local government, not individuals promoting their personal viewpoints.

In Idaho, a law was passed in 2024 restricting the availability to minors of materials that the general populace, who supported the law, consider culturally deviant and appropriate only for adult consumption. The progressive library association, to which most credentialed librarians hold membership, has taken a stand attempting to force their opinion that such materials should be easily accessible to underage readers.

The battle is underway

The battle is underway in a number of states where LGBTQ+ proponents have misidentified the removal of pornographic materials from public schools and libraries as “book bans.” There is no ban of the materials in that they are readily available to individuals at other outlets--booksellers or private libraries--where they can be purchased or accessed. The only restriction applied is that public funds are refused allocation for the distribution of materials that the majority of taxpayers consider objectionable. It’s what progressives like to call “democracy.”

Freedom of speech means that those who wish to read pornographic or extremely violent materials are free to do so, but not at the public’s expense. If a parent wants to provide LGBTQ+ books to their families, they are free to purchase them with their own dime. They are not entitled to force their neighbors to pay for it.

The same is true for pornographic websites and chatrooms. Individuals of age may decide to engage in their usage but they may not expect public funds to pay for their experience. This extends to news and political information sites. The press was given the right to print what it saw fit but it was never intended by the Founders to be financed by government, and yet that is exactly what has occurred over the last 50 to 60 years. Freedom of speech meant that individuals could say or print what they wanted but not on the public dole. From this, public libraries are not exempt.

Anyone is “free” to purchase books, movies, and internet materials if they like, but it is not a requirement that public funds pay for it.

Incidences of utilizing publicly financed channels of communications for conversations that are outside the realm of business conduct regulations has reached absurd levels. It has always been considered an egregious and firing offense for employees to spend work time engaging in non-work related activities, whether at private of public offices. This has not stopped public employees with high level security clearances from occupying hours of work time in sexually explicit chats rather than doing their jobs.

Uncovering the secretive chatrooms at NSA disguised as DEI communications is not the first time this sort of activity has been revealed at government offices. Back in 2017, NBC Washington revealed that numerous agencies, from the EPA to NASA, had a hundred employees spending up to six hours a day viewing pornography at their work stations instead of fulfilling their job descriptions, and it had been going on for five years during the Obama administration.

None of these exigencies are covered by “freedom of speech” because there is no clause in the First Amendment that allows for unofficial, especially deviant behavior, to be subsidized by operational funds, public or private, nor is it implied. If that were so, then sexual harassment cases would never have been adjudicated.

Freedom of speech is not free in the sense that someone else foots the bill for an individual’s access to reading or filmed materials. Anyone is “free” to purchase books, movies, and internet materials if they like, but it is not a requirement that public funds pay for it.

Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev, grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as a representative of the paper and, on separate occasions, non-profit organizations. Since 2007, Kristenev has authored five fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon. Carrying an M.S. degree and having taught at premier northwest universities, she is the trustee of Scribes’ College of Journalism, which mission is to train a new generation of journalists in biblical standards of reporting. More information about the college and how to support it can be obtained by contacting Kristenev at cw.o@earthlink.net.

ChangingWind (changingwind.org) is a solutions-centered Christian ministry.

Donate Here