Castro once spoke to the UN for 4-1/2 hours and has been known to speak for 7 hours. I daresay he doesn't start wirh 'I'm no speechmaker'

If you call the difference between obtaining power and not doing so irrelavent, then politics is made up of irrelevancies

Tbere is no reason for everyone not to be punctilious, but it's true, those who hold popular views will not be scrutinized. Nevertheless, the statement is valid.

Political Correctness defies freedom of speech.

Another way of saying "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt", as I think Mark Twain said.., although Arnold may have said it first, as he was a few years older

Short memories (in the electorate) may helpful politicians but definitely not admirable in them. Otherwise we wouldn't have a second Vietnam so soon after the first

Both journalism and whatever is actually real (everyone can have a different take on any event) are too broad to make generalizations. The majority of journalists try to get the facts or they aren't journalists. Being a novelist himself, Chesterton probably never wrote a line of non-fiction and wouldn't know one if he saw it. The statement has no meaning.

Free communication is essential to a free society, as the quote says, but it may be restricted to appropriate times and places, and to content that is not libelous; but the concept of allowing all ideas to be expressed cannot be banned.

I don't agree the First Amendment should or does distinguish between forms of expression; verbal (spoken or written), or nonverbal (actions) Libety should include all forms of nonviolent expression equally. At best, I would either eliminate the adjective, nonexpressive, or at least the prefix, non-. I do like the illustration of the fist and another person's nose as an example of freedom of expression, however.

Agnew also said;"Don't judge us by what we say, judge us by what we do". So they did, and he had to plead nole condendere to tax evasion, resign from officem and be disbarred.

Society has found a middle ground -- not forbidding free expression, but regulating it when necessary, like forbidding false alarms like "fire” or "bomb" in crowded theaters or airline terminals which may incite panic, or any knowingly false or libelous statement to inflict personal damage to others, or limiting prurient, excessively violent, or offensive material to specific places and times. Our founders could not have meant freedom of speech to actually harm others with it. They meant, don't forbid it just because you don't agree with it, but keep it out of someone else's face, so to speak, and don’t cause harm to anyone by it. That's the essence of the first Amendment

But, in fact, the American public can be duped by the media , as they were in 2004 by the likes of the Swift Boat gang, but eventually they wake up -- after the damage has been done

Wben an American is in a foreign country, does he attempt to speak that language? Of course not. He simply talks louder.

There can never actually be a free society and censorship at the same time. One is mutually exclusive to the extent of the other

Electronic press, too - blogs

There should be no wonder freedom of expression was made the first amendment to the Constitution. It is the most important.

Why do people approve Voltaire saying; “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it”, but condemn anyone who actually does it? The ACLU does not condone Nazis, or pornography, or other unpopular things, but they will stand up for the right of those who do, as their freedom of expression. Like an attorney, defending a criminal, he is performing his duty to give the accused the best mitigating case he can, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Why don’t they do that for Christians, then, they ask? Because Christians want to do it from the courthouse walls, or public classrooms, or government documents, etc. which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution. I still say Thoreau was making a joke or a satire on the appearance of vice getting protected and virtue being ignored. He did a poor job of it, in my opinion

You are right, Ken. Cynical is what I meant by; If true, and tongue-in-cheek,. I don't think Thoreau literally meant that vice is protected but virtue is ignored,. It might seem that way to some when the ACLU (of which I happen to be a proud member) defends someone's freedom of expression, in its place, at the expense of someone else's sensitivities. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom from vexation. That is not the same as protecting vice, however.

Semantics? I don't get Thoreau's point of vices being well protected, or virtue having no one to plead its case (does it need one? ..after all, virtue is its own reward) or having no charter of immunity(what does that mean?). If there is a message there it escapes me. Words are meant to clarify, not obfuscate. I lower my rating to 0 as I reconsider it.

If true, it could be there is no reason to plead the cause of virtue. Only wrongdoings create any stir as examples of what not to do. It is not literally true, however and is obviously a tongue-in-cheek bit of irony, and hardly worthy of Thoreau. Not very good semantically either

Is a policeman a "busybody" by spending his time observing, and possibly meddling when necessary, in the behavior, of the people in his jurisdiction? I say he is tending to business, as he should do -- assuming he is a "good cop"

Suffer is one of many words derived from the Latin "ferre" (to bear); transfer, ferry, defer, infer, etc. meaning carry, endure, experience; as used in "Suffer little children to come unto me". It meant carry, not endure pain, as is commonly misunderstood. So the quote, in context, meant "Formerly we endured crimes; now we endure laws." Another example of the fallacy of accepting translations too literally

Simply the recipe for order as opposed to chaos. We live by laws so we can enjoy our freedom

I have no idea what the quote is saying

The essence of the quote (more like an essay or a dissertation than a simple quote) seems to be a comparison of the understanding of liberty to a Frenchman, an Englishman and an American of the day (200 years ago) with that of the ancients. I■m not sure if these ancients, whoever they are, considered their liberty collectively, thereby giving up their individuality or not. If he wants to make that distinction, so be it, but in any case, and it may have been the fault of the translator, the grammar is unworthy of a quotable novelist, such as the author. He uses plural pronouns (their, them, they) with singular antecedents (everyone, each of them) at least a half dozen times I don■t take his point of the statement, nor apptove the grammar he uses to express it.