WIST Quotations

Colton, Charles Caleb -- Lacon: Or, Many Things in Few Words, Vol. 1, § 468 (1820)

Dave — Fri, 06 Feb 2026 18:48:17 +0000

Despotism can no more exist in a nation until the liberty of the press be destroyed, than night can happen before the sun is set.

Charles Caleb "C. C." Colton (1780–1832) English cleric, writer, aphorist
Lacon: Or, Many Things in Few Words, Vol. 1, § 468 (1820)
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 18:01:39 +0000

The First Amendment is truly the heart of the Bill of Rights. The Framers balanced its freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition against the needs of a powerful central government, and decided that in those freedoms lies this nation’s only true security. They were not afraid for men to be free. We should not be.

Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist; US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)
(Source)

The inaugural Madison lecture. Reprinted as "The Bill of Rights," NYU Law Review, Vol. 35 (1960-04).

Arendt, Hannah -- Interview (1973-10) with Roger Errera, Office de Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française (ORTF)

Dave — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:53:17 +0000

The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed?

Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) German-American philosopher, political theorist
Interview (1973-10) with Roger Errera, Office de Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française (ORTF)
(Source)

Other parts of this interview were turned into an episode of the French TV series "Un certain regard," directed by Jean-Claude Lubtchansky, first broadcast 1974-07-06.

This portion of the interview was published in The New York Review of Books (1978-10-26).

Douglas, William O. -- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 512 (1957) [dissent]

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, 512 (1957) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 719 (1971) [concurring]

Dave — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:49:59 +0000

The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.

Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist; US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 719 (1971) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 157 (1959) [concurring]

Dave — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:02:43 +0000

Certainly the First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I read “no law … abridging” to mean no law abridging.

Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist; US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 157 (1959) [concurring]
(Source)

Schopenhauer, Arthur -- Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 2, ch. 9 “On Jurisprudence and Politics [Zur Rechtslehre und Politik],” § 127 (1851) [tr. Payne (1974)]

Dave — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:27:20 +0000

In this respect, the freedom of the press is certainly for the state machine what the safety-valve is for the steam-engine. For by means of it, every dissatisfaction is at once ventilated in words and such grievance is soon exhausted if in it there is not very much substance. If, however, there is, then such ventilation is a good thing and enables the matter to be known in time and to be put right. This is very much better than forcing down the grievance so that it simmers, ferments, expands, and finally ends in an explosion.

[In dieser Hinsicht ist allerdings für die Staatsmaschine die Preßfreiheit Das, was für die Dampfmaschine die Sicherheitsvalve: denn mittelst derselben macht jede Unzufriedenheit sich alsbald durch Worte Luft, ja wird sich, wenn sie nicht sehr viel Stoff. hat, an ihnen erschöpfen. Hat sie jedoch diesen, so ist es gut, daß man ihn bei Zeiten erkenne, um abzuhelfen sehr viel besser, als wenn die Unzufriedenheit eingezwängt bleibt, brütet, gährt, kocht und anwächst, bis sie endlich zur Explosion gelangt.]

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) German philosopher
Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 2, ch. 9 “On Jurisprudence and Politics [Zur Rechtslehre und Politik],” § 127 (1851) [tr. Payne (1974)]
(Source)

(Source (German)). Other translation:

Freedom of the press is to the machinery of the state what the safety-valve is to the steam engine: every discontent is by means of it immediately relieved in words -- indeed, unless this discontent is very considerable, it exhausts itself in this way. If, however, it is very considerable, it is as well to know of it in time, so as to redress it.
[tr. Hollingdale (1970)]

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) [concurring]

Dave — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:12:27 +0000

In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist; US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 296–297 (1964) [concurring]

Dave — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:00:00 +0000

Freedom to discuss public affairs and public officials is unquestionably, as the Court today holds, the kind of speech the First Amendment was primarily designed to keep within the area of free discussion. To punish the exercise of this right to discuss public affairs or to penalize it through libel judgments is to abridge or shut off discussion of the very kind most needed. This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials.

Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist; US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 296–297 (1964) [concurring]
(Source)