Yair Lapid Quotes

Any time someone carries a picket sign in front of the White House, that is the First Amendment in action.

One who comes to the Court must come to adore, not to protest. That's the new gloss on the 1st Amendment.

I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

The First Amendment was designed to allow for disruption of business as usual. It is not a quiet and subdued amendment or right.

There is nothing more American than dissent.

I can think of few plainer, more direct abridgments of the freedoms of the 1st Amendment than to compel persons to support candidates, parties, ideologies or causes that they are against.

The Supreme Court decision [Texas v. Johnson, 1989] does not in any way indicate the government is backing off from forcing the flag on people. They just don't want to look too dictatorial in the way they do it.

Offensive or not, those who burn the flag to express their views are exercising a right that our founding generation fought a revolution to secure.

The Supreme Court has equated money with free speech.

There is no indication - either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it - that a separate judicial category exists for the American flag alone. ... We decline ... therefore to create for the flag an exception to the … principles protected by the First Amendment.

Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government.

We have a First Amendment right to burn the flag as symbolic speech. The Constitution protects that right. To spend time and effort on this is ridiculous.

I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.

You watch the Supreme Court in action on these cases, and they are a conflicted court. However, when it comes to speech issues generally, the court has been protective.

In rendering its decision in our case, the Supreme Court equated money with speech because these days it takes the first to make yourself heard.

The First Amendment allows Nazis and white extremists to do what they are going to do, and it allows for black extremists and all other types of extremists to do what they are going to do. I understand that, and I'm not opposed to that.

Clinton's a schmuck.

Worrying that banning flag desecration would inhibit free speech reveals a misunderstanding of the flag's fundamental nature.

The Supreme Court has held that code is speech. And it doesn't matter that it's done on a computer or done face to face or done in a newspaper, reporting the facts of the world is protected speech.

Flag desecration is not a constitutional issue for the courts. It is a political one that belongs to the people.

People have a right to criticize.

I love the protest signs protected by the First Amendment - some of them humorous, some of them passionate, some factual, some entirely incorrect - all of them free ideas.

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

Who personally has ever witnessed a flag burning?

We're not against people demonstrating. We want people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. They can do that by simply demonstrating across the street, in a way that doesn't block the door or harass women.