Georges Simenon Quotes

I believe that the power of literature is stronger than the power of tyranny.

In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.

Sometimes I believe that the reason I have been able to do such exemplary work on the screen is because this is the only place I can be free, neither censured nor judged.

Dictatorship and authentic literature are incompatible... The writer is the natural enemy of dictatorship.

There shouldn't be any censorship on making a film.

For a writer, personal freedom is not so important. It is not individual freedom that guarantees the greatness of literature; otherwise, writers in democratic countries would be superior to all others. Some of the greatest writers wrote under dictatorship - Shakespeare, Cervantes.

I worked on movies with a lot of violence when I was a cinematographer, and it always bothered me. It's a personal thing. I wouldn't want my kids to see it. I certainly believe that freedom of expression shouldn't be taken away, but I also believe you can make movies that are thrilling and exciting without too much violence.

Literature has its own life, even in a dictatorship like the Soviet Union.

In this Nation every writer, actor, or producer ... should be free from the censor.

Filmmakers and artists always thrive during more liberal times.

In the end, censoring a comedian's jokes is on par with censoring 'Huckleberry Finn.' Now, I'm not comparing myself to Mark Twain - he had much wavier hair and a slightly thicker mustache. But when you deny an artist the chance to explore his art, you're forcing your beliefs on him.

Books are the liberated spirits of men.

I wanted to do my artistic work, and in Iran you have censorship. It was difficult for me to do the work I wanted to do.

Censorship may have to do with literature; but literature has nothing whatever to do with censorship.

Censors are necessary, increasingly necessary, if America is to avoid having a vital literature.

Above all, we are coming to understand that the arts incarnate the creativity of a free people. When the creative impulse cannot flourish, when it cannot freely select its methods and objects, when it is deprived of spontaneity, then society severs the root of art.

An artist in my view is always afraid of extremists; he is always afraid of those who claim to have found the ultimate solution to any question.

There is a point, and it is reached more easily than is supposed, where interference with freedom of the arts and literature becomes an attack on the life of society.

Everyone should have the right to go off and do their music or do their books. The people who are in the position to censor they're really not down to reality where that certain artists are coming from.

I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity.

When one writer tries to silence another, he silences every writer-and in the end he also silences himself.

In the end, you can't censor the truth, especially when it comes packaged in hot music.

No writer in a free country should be expected to bother about the exact demarcation between the sensuous and the sensual; this is preposterous; I can only admire but cannot emulate the accuracy of judgment of those who pose the fair young mammals photographed in magazines where the general neckline is just low enough to provoke a past master's chuckle and just high enough not to make a postmaster frown.

Censorship is not an occupation that attracts intelligent, subtle minds. Censors can and often have been outwitted. But the game of slipping Aesopian messages past the censor is ultimately a sterile one, diverting writers from their proper task.

One thing is for sure-none of the arts flourishes on censorship and repression. And by this time it should be evident that the American public is capable of doing its own censoring.