It Is My Belief That There Are

What Finally Emerges From The 'clear And Present Danger' Cases Is A Working Principle That The Substantive Evil Must Be Extremely Serious And The Degree Of Imminence Extremely High Before Utterances Can Be Punished...it Must Be Taken As A Command Of The Broadest Scope That Explicit Language, Read In The Context Of A Liberty-loving Society, Will Allow.

I Am For The First Amendment From The First Word To The Last. I Believe It Means What It Says.

Freedom To Publish Means Freedom For All And Not For Some. Freedom To Publish Is Guaranteed By The Constitution But Freedom To Continue To Prevent Others From Publishing Is Not.

Among Religions In This Country Which Do Not Teach What Would Generally Be Considered A Belief In The Existence Of God Are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism And Others.

The First Amendment's Language Leaves No Room For Inference That Abridgments Of Speech And Press Can Be Made Just Because They Are Slight. That Amendment Provides, In Simple Words, That "congress Shall Make No Law . . . Abridging The Freedom Of Speech, Or Of The Press." I Read "no Law . . . Abridging" To Mean No Law Abridging.