Take the following as truth: The Court further asserts that these cases are different from Rust because the welfare funding restriction seeks to use an existing medium of expression and to control it . . . in ways which distort its usual functioning, ante, at 8. This is wrong on both the facts and the law.
Then the following statement: "The Court believes that these cases are identical to Rust since they are within the range of usual functioning." is true, false, or inconclusive?