Marvin Ammori Quotes

The next time you download a book on Kindle, buy a Michael Moore screed at Barnes & Noble, or order up a political movie from video on demand, remember that it is the Supreme Court's decision in 'Citizens United' that guarantees you the right to do so.

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

Our founding fathers could not have foreseen that freedom of the press might eventually be threatened just as much by media consolidation as by government.

If you don't think a television news show represents the truth, you can turn off your TV. If you don't think a magazine represents the truth, you can cancel your subscription. You have the right to expose yourself to whatever information you want. But to have the government prescribing what the truth is or limiting the information available for the citizen is contrary to the 1st Amendment.

The First Amendment protects the news media and the news media knows how to use it. Donald Trump doesn't understand it, he's never going to understand it.

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

I think it is absolutely essential in a democracy to have competition in the media, a lot of competition, and we seem to be moving away from that.

Incredible that liberals aren't more concerned about the monopoly of information in South Dakota.

Almost anything is better than three network TV outlets completely controlling the national discourse with their nightly broadcasts. We've moved a long way from that, and that's important.

Common sense tells us that this explosion of media sources should eliminate any concern over a lack of diversity of views in the marketplace and competition.

People may be due the benefits of a democratic electoral process. But in the United States, content curators appropriately have a First Amendment right to present their content as they see fit.

There is no reason for the government to limit political speech.

Do we really want the FCC to conduct investigations and issue warnings to radio talk show hosts nationwide who simply discuss the important issues of our time? The Constitution says 'freedom of speech,' not 'freedom of government-approved fair speech in rationed amounts.'

The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands.

In a hyper-capitalist environment dominated by media giants, the means available to independent journalism have narrowed considerably.

I find it very offensive when the government tells me what I can and cannot watch. Censor yourself.

A free and truly independent press - fiercely independent when necessary - is the red beating heart of freedom and democracy.

Well, many of us believe that excessive media concentration is a subject that ought to be addressed, and it is, of course, the intention of the majority party not to allow that to be discussed.

The ethics of editorial judgement, however, began to go though a sea change during the late 1970s and '80s when the Carter and Reagan Administrations de-regulated the television industry.

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

Power in America today is control of the means of communication.

Broadcasting is really too important to be left to the broadcasters and somehow we must find some new way of using radio and television to allow us to talk to each other.

A free press can of course be good or bad, but most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad.

The newspapers of your country seem to be more powerful than the government.

Where there is official censorship it is a sign that speech is serious.