I know the details. I think you're missing my point. I'm challenging the status quo legal interpretation of the extent to which the first amendment is applicable. I'm arguing that regardless of the exact letter of the language in the bill of rights, we are experiencing an environment whereby individuals are unable to freely express themselves without real threat to their livelihood and that it is in the interest of a functional democracy to preserve and protect such a right. I believe this is the government's concern because a) the government decides economic policy, and so we are responsible for the effects of e.g. a capitalist/private-sector-driven economy. If such a choice is having the effect of impingement of freedom of expression, it matters little whether the government paid for the institution directly or not. We subsidize private institutions as a society and we are responsible for and have power over that decision. And b) the spirit of the bill of rights is not being upheld. The whole point of the bill of rights is a realization that in order for a society built on civil liberty and freedom to thrive, there must be limits to the power any institution has to stifle said freedoms. That the law of the land must protect those freedoms for all people, full stop.

In short, I am aware of the status quo but I think interpretation is ripe for a modern revamp given trends over the last decade.