> In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to fund them.

I understand that that's frustrating for you, my objection with your post is merely your claim that this constitutes forced speech. It does not, unless you believe that money=speech. Some people hold that belief, but I suspect very few of them will be consistent about accepting the logical consequences of that belief (therefore they don't really hold the belief, they just reasoned backwards to justify a belief they _do_ hold).

There's nothing in the belief that speech should be free and unforced that prohibits state-owned media (as long as other speech is not suppressed), or even outright state propaganda. That doesn't mean you can't be against these things, merely that being against these things doesn't automatically follow from believing in that free and unforced speech is a fundamental right.

If you want to make the case that state-owned media are immoral (which, just to be clear, I don't currently believe), you need to refer to different rights. I've heard some people on the internet make the claim, for instance, that all taxes constitute theft, and that taxes are fundamentally immoral. I don't believe this at all, but that would give you a moral basis to renounce state media.

But really, sometimes the state is just going to do something that you don't like, perhaps even hate with a passion, without violating a fundamental right. I know I'd be furious if the state broadcaster started propagandizing a religion, for instance, but as long as they don't infringe on my freedom to believe what I want, they're not violating any of my rights (I could, at most, argue that it's a slippery slope to violating my rights, which may be a convincing argument by itself).