Deborah K. Ross Quotes

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.

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.

We all find flag burning repugnant. We find burning crosses repugnant. But they have been burning crosses longer than they have been burning flags and there has been no rush for a constitutional amendment to stop the burning of crosses.

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.

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

Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. And burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea - I hate the government, the government is unjust, whatever.

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.

Who personally has ever witnessed a flag burning?

The Constitution does not allow the unnecessary trammeling of free expression, even for the noblest of purposes.

If the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and press is to mean anything, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community.

Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.

A flag burning Constitutional amendment would rip the fabric of the Constitution at its very center.

Burn the flag; that's a freedom. Then I have the freedom to take it away from them and tell them how dumb they are.

I support the ability of people to be able to burn the American flag if they want to. But people have the right in this country to debate it.

If you buy the flag it's yours to burn.

Since we don't have a tyrant or a dictator, we can't put people who are burning flag in jail. But Donald Trump is telling you what he thinks of 'em. He's not gonna do anything of the sort. This is where people go off the rails with Trump, with this literal business and so fort

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.'

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

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

People have a right to criticize.