Epictetus Quotes

The intelligent defense of free speech should not rest on the notion that we must tolerate every form of speech, no matter how offensive. It's that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike, and reserve our harshest penalties only for the worst offenders.

It is a misuse of words if you say 'content censorship'. But no censorship does not mean there is no management.

I think over the long run, it's better that government does not regulate the content of speech.

The ultimate censorship is the flick of the dial.

Free speech is against governments, not against the NBA. So the players and coaches and indeed owners have been fined for their speech, which is costly rather than free. I sort of acknowledge that there is not free speech when you agree to work in the NBA.

What we have is two important values in conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can't have both.

Unfortunately, opponents of online speech have decided to punish our changing technological world.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I believe we should also have the right to comment on freedom of speech.

I can't think of a bigger waste of police time than chasing somebody who has said something offensive on Twitter.

The First Amendment says nothing about your getting paid for saying anything. It just says you can say it. I don't believe that if a corporation pulls all the money out of you or a network pulls their money away or you get fired, you're being censored.

We have freedom of speech, but you got to watch what you say.

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.'

I don't think it makes any sense to try to get anyone to not talk.

We want to protect freedom of speech, but it is not unlimited freedom of speech. There has always been rules around defamation, slander and libel, and in Victoria, we have effective rules on racial and religious vilification.

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.

Individuals have the right to pick and choose which expressions to condemn, which to praise and which to say nothing about. Governments, however, must remain neutral as to the content of expression. And governments must protect the rights of all to express even the most despicable of views.

Oh, in France you can't defame an idea, only a person.

As a free-speech advocate, I believe that adults should have access to any material they want. As a parent, and a community member, I think people should be able to protect their homes from imagery - much of it violent - that is, I feel, a form of child abuse when adult society inflicts it upon children.

In Canada we respect freedom of speech but we do not worship it.

The marketing department of any given publishing house has far more power over free expression in America than any government office.

Freedom of speech is freedom to offend.

It's very difficult to have just a little bit of censorship.

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

Freedom of speech only exists in proportion to indifference to the thing spoken of.

The First Amendment is national in scope and, as the Supreme Court said in Tinker, it does not stop at the schoolhouse door. Not all children are the same. Is a 17-year-old on the eve of his 18th birthday the same as a five-year-old? It is not the responsibility of librarians, or online content providers for that matter, to determine what is appropriate.