
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) (Opinion of the Court).
We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. [...] The Government’s assurance that it will apply [a statutory provision] more restrictively than its language provides is pertinent only as an implicit acknowledgment of the potential constitutional problems with a more natural reading.
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) (Opinion of the Court).
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) (Opinion of the Court).
International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=505&invol=672 (concurring opinion) (26 June 1992).
“And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment”
1961, Address to ANPA
Context: Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.
“Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry.”
CNN telephone interview http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html about proposed ban of iPods while crossing streets (February 2007)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (Opinion of the Court).
[The Way Things Ought to Be, Pocket Books, October 1992, 277, 978-0671751456, 92028659, 26397008, 1724938M]
No Compromise – No Political Trading (1899)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (Opinion of the Court).
Concurring opinion, Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).