A federal judge has ruled, correctly, that the First Amendment isn’t a guarantee of a government subsidy. It’s an interesting case in and of itself, but Machete Productions v. Texas Film Commission raises another question: Why is the state subsidizing movies at all?

“Last year the producers behind the sequel to the 2010 gory action comedy ‘Machete’ sued Texas for denying them tax breaks under a state program that encourages film production in the state,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “Alleging First Amendment violations, Machete Productions LLC claimed Texas officials overseeing the film program disqualified ‘Machete’ and the 2013 follow-up ‘Machete Kills’ from receiving production grants because of the films’ ‘perceived political nature.’ Both movies were filmed in Texas.”

Now, setting aside the artistic merit of “Machete Kills” – in which Charlie Sheen plays the U.S. president – the issue here is what the government owes to Americans. Certainly, it owes them protections of their First Amendment liberties. But that doesn’t mean it has to subsidize their free speech (or writings, or books, or movies).

That’s what Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Catharina Haynes ruled.

“Machete does not dispute that it was free to engage in protected First Amendment activity without the benefit of an Incentive Program grant, and in fact did engage in such activity by making the film,” she wrote. “Machete has not shown that it is clearly established that the First Amendment requires a state which has an incentive program like this one to fund films casting the state in a negative light.”

In other words, the state of Texas doesn’t owe the filmmaker, Robert Rodriguez, anything more than the freedom to make his films.

Machete Productions raised the issue of which films the state should subsidize. The larger issue is whether the state should subsidize any films.

State Rep. Matt Shaheen, R-Plano, filed legislation last year to abolish the Texas Film Commission, and he made some pretty persuasive arguments.

“It’s time we end these Hollywood handouts to an industry that, at times, is hostile to America’s founding principles. We should only have to pay once for movies, and that’s at the box office,” Shaheen said at the time.

He’s right. Subsidizing films isn’t an appropriate use of tax dollars.

Of course there are arguments against abolishing the Film Commission. The Commission (and the subsidies and tax breaks it distributes) helps bring jobs to Texas, supporters said.

And that’s true, as far as it goes. But the Texas Comptroller ran a simple cost-benefit analysis on the state’s economic development incentives (including the Texas Film Commission) and found that “most jobs created in the Film/TV/Commercials sectors are either temporary, part-time (walk-on) roles, or leave the state upon project completion.”

Furthermore, lawmakers should focus on creating the kind of business-friendly environment that will attract movie makers without direct subsidies. Hollywood, California is anything but friendly to business, so our state’s low taxes, “open shop” union rules and lighter regulatory regime should make Texas an attractive alternative.

Shaheen’s bill went nowhere last session. It should be revived in the next.