Limmy Quotes

In the early 2000s, people expected that anonymity on the Internet would be positive for the development of democracy in South Korea. In a Confucian culture like South Korea's, hierarchy can block the free exchange of opinions in face-to-face situations. The web offered a way around that.

Even with censorship, the Internet is a force for change.

The user in China wants the same thing that any Internet user wants - privacy in conversations, maximum access to information, and the ability to speak their minds online.

There's always going to be a tradeoff between trolling and anonymity, and I guess that's the way life will be. And you can manage it, but you can't cure it.

I don't think any media has to feel obliged to show the cover of 'Charlie Hebdo.'

Crackdowns on Internet content make clear the need for an anonymized Web. Now, someone just needs to implement it.

Twitter is a form of free speech, and I'm all for that. But if Cee Lo Green, a maverick of sorts, can't get on Twitter and say something outlandish or outrageous, then what is the whole point of Twitter at all?

Google, Microsoft and Yahoo should be developing new technologies to bypass government sensors and barriers to the Internet; but instead, they agreed to guard the gates themselves.

In Russia, they do not generally block the Internet and directly censor websites.

Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.

The Internet provides a medium for distributing censored cartoons.

I would deactivate every single comment on any social media. You should be able to post what you want, say what you want, be what you want without anybody judging you.

I don't control what people say. I don't control what people put on dot-com or anything else.

Donald Trump doesn't care about free speech. The man who tweets everything that enters his head doesn't care about the amendment which lets him do that.

In addition to all the good things it's done, the Internet has empowered an awful lot of people who would have been best off disempowered, including quite a few bloggers on both sides.

Oliver Darcy is a perpetual victim. He is constantly advocating for people to be banned and silenced. As a member of the media, Oliver Darcy should respect our First Amendment right.

Even as a child, I was witness to protests against a film or a play or a book. All through my growing years, I found various people or organisations protesting against something.

If anyone ever accuses me of bias - on Twitter, say - they're blocked straight away. It simply isn't true.

Whether you like Kanye or not, there has been a character assassination against this guy. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but you do have to defend his right to say it.

The traditional media [in China] is still heavily controlled by the government; social media offers an opening to let the steam out a little bit. But because you don't have many other openings, the heat coming out of this opening is sometimes very strong, active and even violent.

I draw a distinction between freedom of the internet and freedom via the internet. In the first case, it's making sure cyberspace is not over regulated and people can say what they want without fear of repercussions. But that's different from this freedom via the internet notion, which is often touted by all sorts of conservatives and neoconservatives who want young people in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world to use Facebook and Twitter and then go oppose their governments.

Vulnerability of artists is definitely what makes organizations like PEN necessary because, as I tried to argue, the actual work that writers and artists do has an ornery way of surviving. Particularly in this age of the internet, it is very easy for forbidden work to be found online somewhere if you know where to look. Artists themselves, however, are in increasing danger, and not just artists. The great concern is that year after year, rising numbers of journalists are being killed in pursuit of their work.

There's lot of social censorship now, especially in this era of ubiquitous social media.

There's a fundamental difference between people who want to see the Internet and say - 'Let's lobotomize and censor parts of it because we need to control it' - and those like us who see the Internet as a method of growing the economy and innovating in front of the world. And we have to actually reconcile those two positions. And we believe that it is much better to protect this crown jewel of civilization, which is the ability for us to communicate and express our ideas freely, than to try to lobotomize it.

I wish that Google would realize its own power in the cause of free speech. The debate has been often held about Google's role in acceding to the Chinese government's demands to censor search results. Google says that it is better to have a hampered internet than no internet at all. I believe that if the Chinese people were threatened with no Google, they might even rise up and demand free speech - free search and links - from their regime. Google lives and profits by free speech and must use its considerable power to become a better guardian of it.