Hank Johnson Quotes

The Amendment might have said, “Except in times and situations involving 'clear and present danger' to the national security, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Or it might have read, “Only when, in the judgment of the legislature, the interests of order and security render such action advisable shall Congress abridge the freedom of speech.” But the writers of the Amendment did not adopt either of these phrasings or anything like them.

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional right to free speech, it acts lawlessly; and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.

Citizens United fought to defend our right to free speech - and won a great victory in the United States Supreme Court.

We had a responsibility to represent all people whose 1st Amendment rights were at risk

We do not debar Congress from all action upon the freedom of speech. Legislation that abridges that freedom is forbidden, but not legislation to enlarge and enrich it

Corporations are not people. That’s why we have different laws governing corporations and governing people.

There is no question that under the Equal Rights Amendment there will be debates at times, indecision at times, litigation at times. Has anyone proposed that we rescind the First Amendment on free speech because there is too much litigation over it? Has anyone suggested the same for the Fourteenth Amendment I don't suppose there has ever been a constitutional amendment with so much litigation?

It's time for us to review the circumstances under which corporations gain rights superior to that of individuals in our society. It's time for us to look at the practices of corporations and holding them accountable for violations of law which often go unnoticed because there is very little regulation.

The corporation is not an independent "person" with its own rights, needs, and desires that regulators must respect. It is a state created tool for advancing social and economic policy.

Of the five rights listed in the First Amendment. - religion, speech, press, assembly, petition - the very first right protected is freely exercising our religion.

Corporations have free speech, but they can't speak like you and me. They don't have mouths or hands.

Free discussion is the only necessary Constitution - the only necessary Law of the Constitution.

First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.

Whether some of us may like it or not, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First [Amendment] as protecting speech that is indecent but not obscene.

Despite the apparent absoluteness of the First Amendment, there are any number of ways of getting around it, ways that are known to any student of law. In general, the strategy is to manipulate the distinction between speech and action which is at bottom a distinction between inconsequential and consequential behavior.

Freedom of speech is a great thing and we have said nothing that is not allowed.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech; there are only absolute rights of private property. Speech is circumscribed by private property rights. You may deliver a disquisition in my virtual or actual living room only if I permit you to so do.

The First Amendment...begins with the five loveliest words in the English language: 'Congress shall make no law'.

The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced.

I'm defending free speech pretty much all over the place because you still have freedom of speech.

Beware! Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to be misunderstood.

The First and Fourteenth Amendments say that Congress and the States shall make "no law" which abridges freedom of speech or of the press. In order to sanction a system of censorship I would have to say that "no law" does not mean what it says, that "no law" is qualified to mean "some" laws. I cannot take this step.

There is still the illusion that if we could declare corporations are not people or that money is not speech, all would be solved. Regardless of the good in those ideas, it wouldn't.

Every legislative limitation upon utterance, however valid, may in a particular case serve as an inroad upon the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.

The first amendment ensures not that speech will be fair, but that it will be free. It cannot be both.