WIST Quotations

L'Engle, Madeleine -- Speech (1983-11-16), “Dare To Be Creative,” Lecture, Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Dave — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:16:46 +0000

I am very wary of those individuals who are neither writers nor editors nor even, in some cases, readers, who feel that they have the right to apply their own moral criteria to the books in public and school libraries. I have enormous respect and admiration and love for the librarians who are rising up to protest this, because they are putting their very jobs on the line.

Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007) American writer
Speech (1983-11-16), “Dare To Be Creative,” Lecture, Library of Congress, Washington, DC
(Source)

Douglas, William O. -- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 512, dissenting opinion (1957)

Dave — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:32:19 +0000

Any test that turns on what is offensive to the community’s standards is too loose, too capricious, too destructive of freedom of expression to be squared with the First Amendment. Under that test, juries can censor, suppress, and punish what they don’t like, provided the matter relates to “sexual impurity” or has a tendency “to excite lustful thoughts”. This is community censorship in one of its worst forms. It creates a regime where in the battle between the literati and the Philistines, the Philistines are certain to win.

William O. Douglas (1898–1980) American jurist, US Supreme Court justice (1939–75)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 512, dissenting opinion (1957)
(Source)

Douglas, William O. -- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 513, dissenting opinion (1957)

Dave — Tue, 24 May 2016 13:28:22 +0000

Thus, if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and press is to mean anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.

William O. Douglas (1898–1980) American jurist, US Supreme Court justice (1939–75)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 513, dissenting opinion (1957)
(Source)