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

You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

I personally think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods. It's a tricky thing to try to own something that remains in your possession even after you give it to many others.

It didn't matter what we did or where we did it as long as we were together. We knew we'd found what most people either pursue in years of futile search or dismiss as a fantasy at the outset: the missing half of ourselves. The real thing.

If all ideas have to be bought, then you have an intellectually regressive system that will assure you have a highly knowledgeable elite and an ignorant mass.

I mean I look forward to the day when I can be Republican again.

But generally speaking, I felt to engage in the political process was to sully oneself to such a degree that whatever came out wasn't worth the trouble put in.

Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.

Most libertarians are worried about government but not worried about business. I think we need to be worrying about business in exactly the same way we are worrying about government.

So I'm just waiting until one party or the other actually gets a moral compass and a backbone.

Everyone seems to be playing well within the boundaries of his usual rule set. I have yet to hear anyone say something that seemed likely to mitigate the idiocy of this age.

They seem to have forgotten that, and are back saying the only purpose of P2P networks is for illegal trading of owned goods. We claim part of the reason for P2P is for legal trading of what ought to be in public domain. And what is in public domain in many cases.

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

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge.

I don't know that I believe in the supernatural, but I do believe in miracles, and our time together was filled with the events of magical unlikelihood.

I'm still strongly opposed to antismoking laws, strongly opposed to any law that regulates personal behavior.

Royalties are not how most writers or musicians make their living. Musicians by and large make a living with a relationship with an audience that is economically harnessed through performance and ticket sales.

In Cyberspace, the First Amendment is a local ordinance.

The one thing that I know government is good for is countervailing against monopoly. It's not great at that either, but it's the only force I know that is fairly reliable.

But groundless hope, like unconditional love, is the only kind worth having.

Any powerful technology has sauce for the goose and the gander... It's just an extension of humanity.

Google, Amazon, Apple. Any number of cloud providers and computer service providers who can increasingly limit your access to your own information, control all your processing, take away your data if they want to, and observe everything you do; in a way, that does give them some leverage over your own life.

I had always thought that the idea of love at first sight was one of those things invented by lady novelists from the South with three names.

I personally think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods.

Musicians by and large make a living with a relationship with an audience that is economically harnessed through performance and ticket sales.

The Internet may well disempower the nation state, but at the same time, it also strengthens certain specific state functions - like surveillance. As a political entity, it doesn't empower the nation sate. It creates the availability of much more data than the digestive system of the nation state could possibly assimilate.

The government targets 'Anonymous' for the same reason it targets al-Qaida - because they're the enemy.

Incompetence is a double-edged banana.

God's jokes are the soul's curriculum.

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.