Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.

However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises.

It is not unprofessional to give free legal advice, but advertising that the first visit will be free is a bit like a fox telling chickens he will not bite them until they cross the threshold of the hen house.

The trial of a case is a three-legged stool - a judge and two advocates.

Trials by the adversarial contest must in time go the way of the ancient trial by battle and blood.

There can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society.

To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Concepts of justice must have hands and feet to carry out justice in every case in the shortest possible time and the lowest possible cost. This is the challenge to every lawyer and judge in America.

Calculated risks of abuse are taken in order to preserve higher values.

We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.

We are more casual about qualifying the people we allow to act as advocates in the courtroom than we are about licensing electricians.

Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.

A far greater factor than abolishing poverty is the deterrent effect of swift and certain consequences: swift arrest, prompt trial, certain penalty and - at some point - finality of judgment.

It is indeed an odd business that it has taken this Court nearly two centuries to "discover" a constitutional mandate to have counsel at a preliminary hearing.

There can be no assumption that today's majority is "right" and the Amish and others like them are "wrong." A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different.

Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.

Crime and the fear of crime have permeated the fabric of American life.

It is indeed an odd business that it has taken this Court nearly two centuries to 'discover' a constitutional mandate to have counsel at a preliminary hearing.

There can be no assumption that today's majority is 'right' and the Amish and others like them are 'wrong.' A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different.

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.