As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends.

The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.

The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law.

The principle of asceticism never was, nor ever can be, consistently pursued by any living creature. Let but one tenth part of the inhabitants of the earth pursue it consistently, and in a day's time they will have turned it into a Hell.

Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart.

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

He who thinks and thinks for himself, will always have a claim to thanks; it is no matter whether it be right or wrong, so as it be explicit. If it is right, it will serve as a guide to direct; if wrong, as a beacon to warn.

All punishment is mischief; all punishment in itself is evil.

Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.

It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.

Every law is an infraction of liberty.

It is vain to talk of the interest of the community, without understanding what is the interest of the individual.

The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.

Stretching his hand up to reach the stars, too often man forgets the flowers at his feet.

No power of government ought to be employed in the endeavor to establish any system or article of belief on the subject of religion.

Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.

As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends.

The age we live in is a busy age; in which knowledge is rapidly advancing towards perfection.

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.

The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but rather, 'Can they suffer?'

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?

It is vain to talk of the interest of the community without understanding what is the interest of the individual.

Secrecy being an instrument of conspiracy ought never to be the system of a regular government.

It is vain to talk of the interest of the community, without understanding what is the interest of the individual.

The spirit of dogmatic theology poisons anything it touches.

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.