I suppose maybe [Wilson] would be a better person if he were able to censor himself, but then he wouldn't be as interesting.
[Wilson] has this strange inability to censor himself, and he'll say these things that are sometimes quite caustic or end up creating some kind of violent reaction, you know. But, you know, I admire that.
Words alone can rarely justify censorship. If we censor words themselves without looking at the context, we could shut down much of the entertainment industry.
Rather than trying to put an end to Eminem or some other rapper, politicians should think about why they're rapping. It's easier to try to censor some kid who's swearing about poverty than it is to stop the poverty.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
Thus if the First Amendment means anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
The censor is always quick to justify his function in terms that are protective of society. But the First Amendment, written in terms that are absolute, deprives the States of any power to pass on the value, the propriety, or the morality of a particular expression.
Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
Censors will try to censor a little bit more each year (because, like editors and other officious people, censors don't feel they are getting anywhere unless they are up and doing).
It is not the idea as such which the censor attacks, whether it be heresy or radicalism or obscenity. He attacks the circulation of the idea among the classes which in his judgment are not to be trusted with the idea.
I'm a bit of a goofball; I don't have a lot of censors and I don't have a lot boundaries and I'm trying to remember that the world is watching.
They wanna censor me, they ratha see me in a cell, livin' in hell, with only a few of us to live to tell.
A system of cameras and censors are used along the border and interior to help detect the movement of illegal immigrants crossing through the dense brush.
Right now it is illegal for a service provider to censor or block a site because they don't like it or to privilege someone who pays them extra money. So it's basically a level playing field. I think it was a great victory. It doesn't solve all the problems of our time, but I think we've gotten a much better place.
I think the enemy is self-censorship. In a free society the biggest danger is that you're afraid to the point where you censor yourself.
Adults forget that kids are their own best censors.
The function of the censor is to censor. He has a professional interest in finding things to suppress.
One could think of ways to defeat the censor. I could put up the answers on my Facebook page or website or Counterpunch. In today's world it's not easy to suppress information. Technology has helped us a great deal.
Photographs have always been the tar baby of censors and obscenity laws. Literature can certainly (if it's any good) conjure up the most pornographic imagination. But photographs dare to be real. No matter how contrived or constructed they are, there's that damn body staring you in the face.
Feminists who want to censor what they regard as harmful pornography have essentially the same motivation as other would-be censors: They want to use the power of the state to accomplish what they have been unable to achieve in the marketplace of ideas and images. The impulse to censor places no faith in the possibilities of democratic persuasion.
The worst thing you can do is censor yourself as the pencil hits the paper. You must not edit until you get it all on paper. If you can put everything down, stream-of-consciousness, you'll do yourself a service.
A lot of times, we censor ourselves before the censor even gets there.
When you actually see it, it is quite strong, but there's nothing really pornographic about it. They are high-impact yet very short moments of sexuality, which makes it very confusing for the censors. If censors were merely human beings who watch a film ["Aquarius"] and come out with a conclusion about what they saw, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Self-censorship is a lie to yourself; if you are going to be trying to seriously create art, to create literary art, and you decide to hold back, to censor yourself, then you are a fool to yourself and it would be better that you kept your mouth shut and did not speak.
All forms of government ultimately are not going to succeed in trying to control or censor the Internet.
You cant censor peoples dreams.
I never heard of anyone who was really literate or who ever really loved books who wanted to suppress any of them. Censors only read a book with great difficulty, moving their lips as they puzzle out each syllable, when someone tells them that the book is unfit to read.
I think if we ban certain religions, if we censor the Internet, I think that at that point the terrorists will have won.
You have to allow your mind to create and then if you want to censor something and bring it down or point it in a different direction, then you can do it.
The worst censors are those prohibiting criticism of the theory of evolution in the classroom.
What masquerades as sex education is not education at all. It is selective propaganda which artificially encourages children to participate in adult sex, while it censors out the facts of life about the unhappy consequences. It is robbing children of their childhood.
But, o, photography! as no art is,Faithful and disappointing! That recordsDull days as dull, and hold-it smiles as frauds,And will not censor blemishes,Like washing-lines, and Hall's-Distemper boards
I don't feel that censorship keeps me from doing the work, though. I'm my bigger censor.
In conclusion, you can see that there is a place for censors and we only wish that we could tell you where it is.
Cats, as a class, have never completely got over the snootiness caused by the fact that in ancient Egypt they were worshipped as gods. This makes them prone to set themselves up as critics and censors of the frail and erring human beings whose lot they share.
We shouldn't censor ourselves based on the weak idea of "looking cool." It's such a waste of potential awesomeness.
First thoughts have tremendous energy. The internal censor usually squelches them, so we live in the realm of second and third thoughts, thoughts on thought, twice and three times removed from the direct connection of the first fresh flash.
The aim is to burn through to first thoughts, to the place where energy is unobstructed by social politeness or the internal censor, to the place where you are writing what you mind actually sees and feels, not what it thinks it should see or feel.
I will never censor myself to please anyone.
A liberal was somebody who expected and hoped that government would help the poor - you know, that whole routine. I did not know then and I've learned since that in an area that means a lot to me, free speech, liberals are as bad as many conservatives in trying to censor speech.