The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

How many of you have broken no laws this month? That's the kind of society I want to build. I want a guarantee - with physics and mathematics, not with laws - that we can give ourselves real privacy of personal communications.

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.

Censorship is advertising paid by the government.

The only thing that is obscene is censorship.

Right now I think censorship is necessary; the things they're doing and saying in films right now just shouldn't be allowed. There's no dignity anymore and I think that's very important.

Censorship feeds the dirty mind more than the four-letter word itself.

Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.

We get on the bandwagon in all sorts of ways - you know minor ways and major ways - like what you've just encountered which isn't censorship exactly, it was something sort of uglier in a way.

Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.

The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it.

They still had the Lord Chamberlain, so we had this idiotic censorship. We were allowed three Jesus Christs instead of 10. Why three were OK, I don't know.

The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

Stopping leaks is a new form of censorship.

I suppose that writers should, in a way, feel flattered by the censorship laws. They show a primitive fear and dread at the fearful magic of print.

Our censorship has sort of gotten a little too far. Too much censorship is just as bad as having none at all. Children need to be exposed to things, because if they don't see it, eventually, it's not like it's not going to happen, but it's just that there needs to be a balance.

Let me be clear: I am not an advocate of censorship.

There was no censorship of the press: in general, the War Measures Act could have been made even more radical.

The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.

I don't believe in censorship in any form.

The worst evil is - and that's the product of censorship - is the self-censorship, because that twists spines, that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else, I have to always control myself.

In any event, the proper question isn't what a journalist thinks is relevant but what his or her audience thinks is relevant. Denying people information they would find useful because you think they shouldn't find it useful is censorship, not journalism.