"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion, have the full protection of the guarantees [of the First Amendment]." Justice William J. Brennan, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
"If there is a bedrock principle of 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." Justice William J. Brennan, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
"An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment." Justice Hugo L. Black, New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought - - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. I think that we should adhere to that principle with regard to admission into, as well as to life within this country.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929).
“The very reason for the First Amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands.” Justice Hugo L. Black, International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961).
“The makers of our constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - - the most comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
“[T]here is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” Justice Antonin Scalia, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
“The fact that Congress and the Executive have decided that women should not serve in combat fully justifies Congress in not authorizing their registration, since the purpose of registration is to develop a pool of potential combat troops. . . . ‘[T]he gender classification is not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated’ in this case. . . . The Constitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).
“The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. . . . [H]owever, . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, . . . in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, . . . in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, . . . in the Ninth Amendment, . . . or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," . . . are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. . . . This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or . . . in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
“[T]o respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth. In sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.’” Chief Justice Earl Warren, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
“The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a ‘governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.’ . . . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Justice William O. Douglas, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Email Page
Print Page