Yes. Perhaps that's why the courts are so sensitive to this issue when they review the actions of governmental officials. Example, gathering students into an auditorium and recommending that they go to the library to read a creationist tract -- like that Pandas book which figured so prominently in Judge Jones' opinion.
But its O.K. or read in a textbook that Evolution is a FACT in toto implying any other concepts are(as) pure fantasy.. guided by a "teacher"(conservative probably) that will get fired for trying to equal out or display alternative ideas.. =OR= a lefty teacher that will NOT allow even discussion on alternative ways of believing about this stuff..
As usual you protest too much..
All the court did in this case is to say that Pandas represents speech that can be censored. I am sincerely unclear on what grounds. It's not like the book's authors are soliciting perjury, or sanctioning the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded building. Jeepers, nude dancing has "free speech" protections these days. Do you mean to say that a scholarly work does not, if an interest group rises up to protest it, and an interested, sympathetic judge is willing to accede to their demands against the interests of all other parties to the dispute? What kind of America does that make?
We are supposed to be a system organized under a rule of law, not a rule of men -- be they judges, or just a braying mob....
Personally, I think that "live and let live" -- toleration -- is the American way.
And who are these government officials? They are school board members, who presumably hold their offices so long as the electorate (that is, parents in this case) agree to their tenure. There is some confusion at the moment on that subject; but it'll all come out in the wash.
Are you suggesting that the rights of judges in America are superior to the the rights of free men, to the will of the people as expressed through the franchise? If so, please go take another look at the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.