Zitat des Tages über Frei sprechen / Free Speech:
Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.
I will continue to speak out against the views of both Limbaugh and Hannity when I feel it's warranted, meeting their free speech with my own. But I will never forget that, without them, I'd have a much smaller platform on which to do it.
Nor was it only from the millions of slaves that chains had been removed; the whole nation had been in bondage; free speech had been suppressed.
Money is speech. It's incongruous to say a multimillionaire can spend as much on his own campaign as he wants, but you can only give $2,300. His free speech rights are different from yours, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It's absurd.
In terms of political contributions, the free speech rights of corporations I don't think deserve the same protections as the free speech rights of real living, breathing, voting humans.
You cannot prevent me from talking. I am exercising my right to free speech.
It isn't only in the name of free speech that the views of an itchy polemicist should be tolerated - and I say itchy polemicist promoting thought, not itchy ideologue promoting violence - but because provocation is indispensable to the workings of a sound, creative culture.
You must stand for free speech in the streets.
You should protest about the views of people you disagree with over major moral issues, and argue them down, but you should not try to silence them, however repugnant you find them. That is the bitter pill free speech requires us to swallow.
Twitter is a form of free speech, and I'm all for that. But if Cee Lo Green, a maverick of sorts, can't get on Twitter and say something outlandish or outrageous, then what is the whole point of Twitter at all?
Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.
Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground.
Poking fun at other people's beliefs, while it may seem frivolous and offensive, is a non-negotiable right. It is a principle that underpins free speech, the basis for progress.
You hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that man is a Communist!' You never hear a real American talk like that.
I'm as keen as the next person to preserve the right to free speech.
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.
The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship.
The goal is to give people a free encyclopedia to every person in the world, in their own language. Not just in a 'free beer' kind of way, but also in the free speech kind of way.
I don't think we should be deprived of the privilege of free speech.
Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
My hope is that the Chinese government will come to realise that it is futile to repress free speech, and that contrary to what they believe a regime's strength rests not its suppression of a plurality of opinions and ideas, but in its capacity and willingness to encourage them.
That said, the question remains: how to strike the balance between free speech and mutual respect in this mixed-up world, both blessed and cursed with instant communication? We should not fight fire with fire, threats with threats.
I'm not an absolutist about free speech. Intellectually, I believe that most of the time it's better to let things get said, argue them, and put lies and stupidities to rest. Practically, I know that newspapers rarely issue corrections with the same prominence they give to denouncements - and Twitter, by its nature, never does.
Worrying that banning flag desecration would inhibit free speech reveals a misunderstanding of the flag's fundamental nature.
Courts are supposed to interpret laws to avoid 'absurd results' and to avoid constitutional problems - such as infringing on the free speech rights of Americans.
It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.
Free speech includes the right to not speak.
All the big powers they've silenced me. So much for free speech and choice on this fundamental human right.
Citizens United fought to defend our right to free speech - and won a great victory in the United States Supreme Court.
In our period, they say there is free speech. They say there is no penalty for poets, There is no penalty for writing poems. They say this. This is the penalty.
Today it is becoming harder to speak out, with the inception of the Patriot Act, the president has legislated free speech to be a crime.
Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.
By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.
Free speech may be a right, but only by using it as a force for good in the world do we make it a virtue.