Raymond Kethledge Quotes

Criticism of government finds sanctuary in several portions of the 1st Amendment. It is part of the right of free speech. It embraces freedom of the press.

I'm not interested in censorship. I like the First Amendment very much.

People may be due the benefits of a democratic electoral process. But in the United States, content curators appropriately have a First Amendment right to present their content as they see fit.

If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds.

The president is supposed to stand up for the First Amendment and stand up for the free press - not put us through the meat grinder.

Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.

Although I may find the type of programming seen during the 2004 Super Bowl and the 2003 Golden Globe Awards disgusting and disturbing, we must always work hard to defend the cherished freedoms so clearly outlined in our Constitution, including a healthy and free press.

It is without doubt that freedoms of the press and speech need to be protected, but there are undisputed limits to these freedoms, limits that often come into play when national security is threatened.

I can only assume that your editorial writer tripped over the First Amendment and thought it was the office cat.

I believe that the defendants had as much right to publish as the Government has to publish the Constitution.

If the 1st Amendment means anything, it means that the state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.

We are the only country that allows and protects hate speech.

Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.

The censor is always quick to justify his function in terms that are protective of society. But the First Amendment, written in terms that are absolute, deprives the States of any power to pass on the value, the propriety, or the morality of a particular expression.

If the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and press is to mean anything, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community.

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

We have the First Amendment to rely on whenever an elected official tries to impinge on our rights to speak.

The right to free speech is critical to our democracy.

Donald Trump doesn't care about free speech. The man who tweets everything that enters his head doesn't care about the amendment which lets him do that.

Donald Trump and the First Amendment, it's not a beautiful match; it's not a match made in heaven. Between the free speech rights that he has not defended and the freedom of the press, which he has not defended, it's problematic.

In the U.S., free speech and the press are protected by the First Amendment. It has a clarity unmatched by modern legislators and declares that 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.'

The whole freedom-of-speech thing is great. But I don't think that our Founding Fathers predicted social media when they created all of these amendments and stuff.

WikiLeaks' disclosures should be protected under the First Amendment.

The Internet should be an open platform where you are free to go where you want and say and do what you want without having to ask anyone's permission.

I believe in the First Amendment.