Andrew Scheer Quotes

In America we don’t apologize for opinions, that’s why we have a 1st Amendment. If we can’t discuss even controversial opinions in the pages of our newspapers, where are we going to do it?

I'm a free speech bigot. I don't like censorship; I just don't think it's a good thing.

Everyone champions freedom of expression in the abstract but few can resist calling for censorship when they do not like what is being expressed.

While people can differ on the issues, no one should seek to discourage freedom of speech.

I never really expected "Hurricane" to be censored and banned around the world, but I think the good thing that came from it was that it created a dialogue, a conversation, a debate and a discussion. And that's a great thing. It brought all of us together in a unique way. And it made us look a little deeper in ourselves. I think it's a good thing.

If the whole country had to have the same conversation that was safe for everybody, it would be a pretty awful place to live. There wouldn't be a conversation.

I don't feel that an atmosphere of debate and total disagreement and argument is such a bad thing. It makes for a vital and alive field.

If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.

I mean, believe me, I'm not for censorship.

Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground.

I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better.

It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree.

Maybe politically it wasn't wise but when people have different view points I think the public has a right to hear it and the public has a right to make decisions based on those view points.

Advocates of 'free speech' often repeat the mantra that the best response to bad speech is more and better speech, not the suppression of the bad stuff.

You know, everybody believes in free speech until you start questioning them about it.

The American public is capable of doing its own censoring… If you curtail what the other fellow says and does, you curtail what you yourself may say and do.

If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall cheerfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself.

I think people are frightened of saying what they think, and I think that's a bad thing for society.

Criticism, any amount, we welcome it. Come, let's have a discussion - in Parliament, all the better.

I watch 'Question Time' religiously.

There is no right to not be offended, nor should there be.

I generally feel that the solution to speech that people find offensive is more speech. You should talk about it, discuss it.

My view is, let's not shut down anyone's right to speak, let's meet their comments with more speech.

While the debate over banned books usually seems to happen just outside the gates of government, it takes on a new danger and urgency when legislators get involved. Their actions cause voices to be silenced both inside and outside the books. That's un-American.

I want people to have conversations, to have controversy because it creates dialogue and builds bridges.