Yquotes.com

 

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is beside the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
--
International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (concurring opinion) (26 June 1992)

 

Anthony Kennedy

» Anthony Kennedy - all quotes »

Similar quotes

 

There Is Absolutely NOTHING Perplexing About This Story
Real defenders of the First Amendment, such as Leland Yee and myself, understand that what constitutionalists call "political speech" is fully protected by the Constitution. What is not protected is the marketing of adult-rated porn and violence to kids. To the extent that the latter is tolerated, the real First Amendment is cheapened.
What is hypocritical here is not the stance of Yee and me, but rather the knuckleheads who exult in their "pixelante" status--which is defined as someone who tries to shut up video game critics--and then, in the name of freedom of expression, threaten me, my wife, and my right to speak out on the issues of the day.
The only censors, the only opponents of the First Amendment, are gamers who will not tolerate any dissent on their masturbatory game of choice.
Jack Thompson

 

Jack Thompson

 

One of life's best coping mechanisms is to know the difference between an inconvenience and a problem. If you break your neck, if you have nothing to eat, if your house is on fire, then you've got a problem. Everything else is an inconvenience. Life is inconvenient. Life is lumpy. A lump in the oatmeal, a lump in the throat and a lump in the breast are not the same kind of lump. One needs to learn the difference.

 

Robert Fulghum

 

He was, however, speaking to a representative of government, the police. And it is to government that one goes 'for a redress of grievances,' to use an almost forgotten phrase of the First Amendment. But it is said that the purpose was 'to cause inconvenience and annoyance.' Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.

 

William O. Douglas

 

I define speech as any communicative activity. [Can it be nonverbal?] Yes. [Can it be nonverbal and also not written?] Yes. [Can it encompass physical actions?] Yes. Watt [Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 703 F.2d 586 (1983)] was a case in which what was at issue was sleeping as communicative activity. What I said was that for purposes of the heightened protections that are accorded, sleeping could not be speech. That is to say, I did not say that one could prohibit sleeping merely for the purpose of eliminating the communicative aspect of sleeping, if there is any . . . [and] I did not say that the Government could seek to prohibit that communication without running afoul of the heightened standards of the first amendment. If they passed a law that allows all other sleeping but only prohibits sleeping where it is intended to communicate, then it would be invalidated. But what I did say was, where you have a general law that just applies to an activity which in itself is normally not communicative, such as sleeping, spitting, whatever you like; clenching your fist, for example; such a law would not be subject to the heightened standards of the first amendment. That is to say, if there is ordinary justification for it, it is fine. It does not have to meet the high need, the no other available alternative requirements of the first amendment. Whereas, when you are dealing with communicative activity, naturally communicative activity—writing, speech, and so forth— any law, even if it is general, across the board, has to meet those higher standards.

 

Antonin Scalia

 

The First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in the United States Constitution were being violated in Albany again and again — freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the equal protection of the laws — I could count at least 30 such violations. Yet the president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, and all the agencies of the United States government at his disposal, were nowhere to be seen.

 

Howard Zinn