Robin Quivers Quotes

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

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

Free speech is the cornerstone to every right we have.

I try to do that in this book without preaching - to try to do as you just said that you really have to defend the First Amendment rights of everybody.

If you're not going to offend somebody you don't need the First Amendment.

I'm as keen as the next person to preserve the right to free speech.

As a young constitutional lawyer, I was put to the first amendment test when I was called on to defend racists and neo-Nazis. I really had no choice. Surely now we know that none of us do. Free speech is unequivocal, unpolitical, and indivisible.

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is beside the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

The Founding Fathers' instructions were clear: The right to free speech includes bad speech; it means tolerance of ideas that many find obnoxious.

Journalists and everyone in America has a constitutional right to express themselves or write what they want to write.

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.

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.'

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.

In America it's live by the sword of freedom of expression and be will to die by it as well.

I think that, as Americans, we should never forget that when we tamper with freedom of speech, it is a very sensitive issue that affects all of our constitutional rights and privileges.

When I began we did not really have a lot of First Amendment law. It is really surprising to think of it this way, but a lot of the law - most of the law that relates to the First Amendment freedom of the press in America - is really within living memory.

It just seems to be a human trait to want to protect the speech of people with whom we agree. For the First Amendment, that is not good enough. So it is really important that we protect First Amendment rights of people no matter what side of the line they are on.

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

The 1st Amendment protects the right to speak, not the right to spend.

If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the 1st Amendment.

An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the 1st Amendment.

Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify suppression of free speech and assembly.

Implicit in the history of the 1st Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

We don't have the right under the 1st Amendment to act as the national program director.