This is the kind of crap that happens when our Supreme Court violates the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent!
Keep in mind In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court, and with reference to free speech, ruled in the case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, that NEA grants are constitutional if content does not offend "…general standards of decency…" But the Court not only ignored the absence of a power granted to Congress by our Constitution to fund the promotion of art, it likewise ignored the carefully limited wording in our Constitution granting power to Congress To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, which then goes on to limit how this may be done by the following words, “. . . by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Not only is federal funding of the “arts” not authorized by our federal Constitution, but taxing and spending for this purpose, has given us such things as Andres Serrano’s anti-Christian bigotry called “P*** Christ”; Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”; Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater; Karen Finley, “the nude, chocolate smeared women”; Kyle Abraham’s “The Watershed and When the Wolves Came In” focusing on sexual identity; a 2016 festival for sexual deviant singing groups who appeared in a “flash mob” in Denver; taxpayer financing for a sexual deviant festival in San Francisco; funding for the Feminist Press at the City University of New York to digitize classic LGBT titles; an open mic group in D.C for story telling about “Queer Culture in America"; and the recent venomous and hateful smut financed by tax revenue being Shakespeare In Central Park, depicting the violent murder of President Trump ___ all of which is a plain violation of a working person’s 1st Amendment protections who had their earned wages confiscated to finance the speech of others!
So, how does federal funding of the arts violate a taxpayer’s guarantee that Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech? Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance A’s expressions and feelings in public, while B’s financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund A’s speech and expressions.
So, we can very well see how our constitutionally limited system of government can be undermined and subjugated when judges and Justices ignore the actual text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and these judges and Justices take it upon themselves to do what they arbitrarily allege is an “equal right to those appearing before them” as Justice Roberts alleged.
”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .” Jefferson, "A Bill For establishing religious freedom."