There should be no censorship of mail.

We believe, in fact, that the one act of respect has little force unless matched by the other - in balance with it... The acting out of that dual respect I would name as precisely the source of our power.

The free man must be born before freedom can be won, and the brotherly man must be born before full brotherhood can be won. It will come into being only if we build it out of our very muscle and bone - by trying to act it out.

Punishment cannot heal spirits, can only break them.

The longer we listen to one another - with real attention - the more commonality we will find in all our lives. That is, if we are careful to exchange with one another life stories and not simply opinions.

All prisons that have existed in our society to date put people away as no human being should ever be put away.

There should be no censorship of mail.

This is the heart of my argument: We can put more pressure on the antagonist for whom we show human concern.

Think first of the action that is right to take, think later about coping with one's fears.

Nonviolent action does not have to get others to be nice. It can in effect force them to consult their consciences.

To resort to power one need not be violent, and to speak to conscience one need not be meek. The most effective action both resorts to power and engages conscience.

The point is to change one's life. The point is not to give some vent to the emotions that have been destroying one; the point is so to act that one can master them now.

Our task, of course, is to transmute the anger that is affliction into the anger that is determination to bring about change. I think, in fact, that one could give that as a definition of revolution.

We learn best to listen to our own voices if we are listening at the same time to other women - whose stories, for all our differences, turn out, if we listen well, to be our stories also.

I think the only choice that will enable us to hold to our vision... is one that abandons the concept of naming enemies and adopts a concept familiar to the nonviolent tradition: naming behavior that is oppressive.

Vengeance is not the point; change is. But the trouble is that in most people's minds the thought of victory and the thought of punishing the enemy coincide.

The injunction that we should love our neighbors as ourselves means to us equally that we should love ourselves as we love our neighbors.

Nonviolent tactics can move into action on our behalf men not naturally inclined to act for us.

After the revolution, it might very well remain necessary to place people where they could not do harm to others. But the one under restraint should be cut off from the rest of society as little as possible.

After the revolution, let us hope, prisons simply would not exist - if by prisons we mean places that could be experienced by the men and women in them at all as every place that goes by that name now is bound to be experienced.

Of course it can be said of jails, too, that they try - by punishing the troublesome - to deter others. No doubt, in certain instances this deterrence actually works. But generally speaking it fails conspicuously.

People who attack others need rationalizations for doing so. We undermine those rationalizations.

Think first of the action that is right to take think later about coping with ones fears.

I am seriously opposed to censorship of any sort.

There is a fine line between censorship and good taste and moral responsibility.

One thing that success has taught me is censorship.

Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.

Censorship always defeats it own purpose, for it creates in the end the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.

Storytelling is the only studio movie where the censorship is perfectly clear, the only studio movie with a big red box covering up a shot. I take pride in that - and, of course, in having avoided the fate of Eyes Wide Shut.

Censorship of ideas or images or words is wrong.

Everyone has an opinion, and the guy screaming for censorship may be the next guy to have his ideas cut off.

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but, unlike charity, it should end there.

I do not believe in censorship, but I believe we already have censorship in what is called marketing theory, namely the only information we get in mainstream media is for profit.

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.

Censorship is a strange situation. There was times when people would burn books because they didn't like what people were doing.

We Negro writers, just by being black, have been on the blacklist all our lives. Censorship for us begins at the color line.

I'm opposed to censorship of any kind, especially by government. But it's plain common sense that producers should target their product with some kind of sensitivity.

There should be no censorship of mail.

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.

I think the best thing in cases of censorship or things like this is to get as much media as possible.

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.

The censorship is such on television in the U.S. that films like mine don't stand a chance.

Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.

I know that many writers have had to write under censorship and yet produced good novels; for instance, Cervantes wrote Don Quixote under Catholic censorship.

Censorship is the height of vanity.

But, uh, censorship at that time said that you just absolutely couldn't do anything involving children and so we had to go from there. I don't remember what I changed it to. Duvall is just excellent in it.

What is also strange to me is that public libraries have always been in the forefront of opposing censorship.

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

The ultimate censorship is the flick of the dial.