Jeanine Pirro Quotes

We are the only country that allows and protects hate speech.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

I think free speech is probably the coolest thing we have in this country, and again, you can label it hate speech and dismiss it, and then you're allowed to censor it.

The First Amendment defends all forms of speech including hate speech, which is why groups like Ku Klux Klan are allowed to utter their poisonous remarks.

Under the privilege of the 1st Amendment many, many ridiculous things are said.

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.

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

If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

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

While I unconditionally support the First Amendment, inciting violence against others due to their political affiliation is not constitutionally protected speech.

I just think political correctness is a limitation on our First Amendment freedoms.

The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind.

Depictions or expressions of sex, violence, crime are all permitted virtually without limit; but religion, it seems, never.No wonder many in America seem to believe that the court has become one more inclined to protect pornography than to protect religious expression.

Political truth is libel; religious truth, blasphemy.

It's OK to burn a Bible, that's OK. OK to burn a flag, OK, that's all right. But just, you know, for heaven's sake, don't say anything that might offend someone of the Islamic religion.

Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous.

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.

One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.

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.

Those people who want to express their religious beliefs on public property should enjoy the same rights that we provide to those protesting the war in Iraq.

I believe in absolute freedom of expression. Everyone has a right to offend and be offended.

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

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

The First Amendment is not without limits.

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