People may be due the benefits of a democratic electoral process. But in the United States, content curators appropriately have a First Amendment right to present their content as they see fit.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Curators are great, but they're inherently biased. Curators are always making an editorial decision. Those biases have really big implications.
As to the media, they are protected by the First Amendment, as they should be.
Journalists and everyone in America has a constitutional right to express themselves or write what they want to write.
The First Amendment is not an altar on which we must sacrifice our children, families, and community standards. Obscene material that is not protected by the First Amendment can and must be prohibited.
No one respects the First Amendment more than I do. People have a right to express their concerns and their hopes and dreams to their government.
The First Amendment has the same role in my life as a citizen and a writer as the sun has in our ecosystem.
I think the best thing in cases of censorship or things like this is to get as much media as possible.
I'm not interested in censorship. I like the First Amendment very much.
Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
It just seems to be a human trait to want to protect the speech of people with whom we agree. For the First Amendment, that is not good enough. So it is really important that we protect First Amendment rights of people no matter what side of the line they are on.
No opposing quotes found.