When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
While the protection of speech is at the bedrock of our democracy, it's critical as a nation that we exercise our right every day - and that includes embracing and engaging with those we may not agree with.
The political core of any movement for freedom in the society has to have the political imperative to protect free speech.
It is a universal and fundamental political principle that the power to protect can safely be confided only to those interested in protecting, or their responsible agents - a maxim not less true in private than in public affairs.
Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
Politicians must set their aims for the high ground and according to our various leanings, Democratic, Republican, Independent, we will follow. Politicians must be told if they continue to sink into the mud of obscenity, they will proceed alone.
Politicians like to tell people what they want to hear - and what they want to hear is what won't happen.
The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.
Free speech is a valuable commodity, which we preserve and protect, but there quite rightly is restriction on free speech in the best interest of the good order of the community and common sense.
I know that sometimes politics creates situations in which people want to say particular things for political reasons.
Free speech rights means that government officials are barred from creating lists of approved and disapproved political ideas and then using the power of the state to enforce those preferences.
No opposing quotes found.