If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565 (1969)
We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (U.S. 1964)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.
FCC v. Pacifica Fdn., 438 U.S. 726, 745-746 (U.S. 1978)
Sex is as important as eating or drinking and we ought to allow the one appetite to be satisfied with as little restraint or false modesty as the other.
The Marquis De Sade
Randazza Legal Group: The Case for Relocating Porn Production to Las Vegas
If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
John Milton, Areopagitica
Would there be any freedom of press or speech if one must reduce his vocabulary to vapid innocuous euphemisms?
Judge Clayton Horn (ruling that Allen Ginsburg’s poem, Howl, was not legally obscene)