WIST

As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.

Justice John Paul Stevens (b. 1920) US Supreme Court Justice (1975- )
Janet Reno et al. v. ACLU et al., Majority Opinion (1997)

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Justice John Paul Stevens (b. 1920) US Supreme Court Justice (1975- )
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995)

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority.

Justice John Paul Stevens (b. 1920) US Supreme Court Justice (1975- )
Wallace v. Jaffree, Majority Opinion, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Full ruling.