Censorship Limits Quotes

The right to insult members of the government is inviolable.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to say stupid, outrageous things?

A despot doesn't fear eloquent writers preaching freedom—he fears a drunken poet who may crack a joke that will take hold.

Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

On some level, there's a limit to what the government really worries about when it comes to a guy like Ai Weiwei, who's talking to a limited audience of people. He's talking to people who more or less already agree with him.

I have a very specific definition of censorship. Censorship must be done by the government or it's not censorship.

The intelligent defense of free speech should not rest on the notion that we must tolerate every form of speech, no matter how offensive. It's that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike, and reserve our harshest penalties only for the worst offenders.

There is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

Write on any subject you choose. There are no taboos except what is prohibited by law and press ethics.

We can't stop people from thinking what they want to.

While it is democratically not permissible for an individual to own any information or publishing medium, all individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means, even if such means were insane and meant to prove a person's insanity.

Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say something about another's religion. Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say anything that offends someone.

The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right to not agree, not to listen, and not to finance one's own antagonists.

Our censorship has sort of gotten a little too far. Too much censorship is just as bad as having none at all. Children need to be exposed to things, because if they don't see it, eventually, it's not like it's not going to happen, but it's just that there needs to be a balance.

The networks are different so they have a different approach. Obviously, with The Shield - that was on FX so they had a little bit more leeway as far as the dialogue was concerned and even the content and what they showed the viewers, which is a great thing. But we will push it to the limit as far as FOX will let us go; that's for damn sure.

Every reader is different. There's no book that's inappropriate for every person, but there are people who cannot handle everything.

I do think there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression as a concept, which is something I would defend forever, and the limit or license to use the taxpayer's money in a way that may be objectionable to a great many people.