Worrying that banning flag desecration would inhibit free speech reveals a misunderstanding of the flag's fundamental nature.

Our nation is built on the bedrock principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The American flag represents all of us and all the values we hold sacred.

A corollary is that, when laws are out of touch with the people, those laws can and should be changed - from the most simple local regulations to the highest law of the land, our federal Constitution.

Worrying that banning flag desecration would inhibit free speech reveals a misunderstanding of the flag's fundamental nature.

Without amendments we would never even have had the Bill of Rights.

The electronic spectrum is the only natural resource in which there's no such thing as private property rights. You can't own a piece of the spectrum.

One of the things I learned in law school is that there's nothing wrong or undesirable or dishonorable or destructive about amending the Constitution.

It's not written in the Constitution or anything else.... Congress, just out of the clear blue sky, said the airwaves belong to the people, which means, in essence, that it belongs to Congress.

Our flag is not just one of many political points of view. Rather, the flag is a symbol of our national unity.

I was faced more with apathy than opposition.

Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't carry just a piece of cloth to symbolize his belief in racial equality; he carried the American flag.

The concept that you cannot own the airwaves has caused far more harm than good.

Giving people what they want isn't just good radio; it's also the right way to run a country.

It is the will of the American people that we have a right to protect our flag and this can only be accomplished by passing a Constitutional amendment.

Our flag is not just one of many political points of view. Rather the flag is a symbol of our national unity.

Criticism of government finds sanctuary in several portions of the 1st Amendment. It is part of the right of free speech. It embraces freedom of the press.

It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.

Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.

The goal is to give people a free encyclopedia to every person in the world, in their own language. Not just in a 'free beer' kind of way, but also in the free speech kind of way.

The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship.

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.

Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.

Worrying that banning flag desecration would inhibit free speech reveals a misunderstanding of the flag's fundamental nature.

Today it is becoming harder to speak out, with the inception of the Patriot Act, the president has legislated free speech to be a crime.

By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.

Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.

I don't think we should be deprived of the privilege of free speech.

Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground.

The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.

Now is the time to draw a clean, clear, bright line and say if you are engaging in speech over the Internet you do not have to check with your lawyer or your accountant. You are a free American, and you have the opportunity to engage in free speech over the Internet.

Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech.

Nor was it only from the millions of slaves that chains had been removed; the whole nation had been in bondage; free speech had been suppressed.

The political core of any movement for freedom in the society has to have the political imperative to protect free speech.

Free speech means the right to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire.

And, I hope now that everybody understands that the Labour Party - as it always has done - stands for free speech and individual Members of the Labour Party are entitled to exercise that free speech.

That said, the question remains: how to strike the balance between free speech and mutual respect in this mixed-up world, both blessed and cursed with instant communication? We should not fight fire with fire, threats with threats.

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

While even pornography is protected as free speech, the courts have consciously undermined religious speech and freedom of religion for years.

These are all voluntary resources which help parents sort out the choices without infringing on the artists' rights to free speech, which is something that we respect.

Marks on paper are free - free speech - press - pictures all go together I suppose.

You hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that man is a Communist!' You never hear a real American talk like that.

When the public's right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered.

All the big powers they've silenced me. So much for free speech and choice on this fundamental human right.

I am a technological activist. I have a political agenda. I am in favor of basic human rights: to free speech, to use any information and technology, to purchase and use recreational drugs, to enjoy and purchase so-called 'vices', to be free of intruders, and to privacy.

I think, with never-ending gratitude, that the young women of today do not and can never know at what price their right to free speech and to speak at all in public has been earned.

Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.