A Quote by Paul Morrissey

I'm not against censorship in principle. Not at all. Some things should be censored. — © Paul Morrissey
I'm not against censorship in principle. Not at all. Some things should be censored.
On things like censorship, I think everything should be allowed on television. You know, I mean anything. I don’t know who believes that anymore. Every left wing party says there should be some degree of censorship, that some things are bad taste. But it’s unjustifiable for anyone to decide what is bad taste.
The case against censoring anything is absolute: ... nothing that could be censored can be so bad in its effects, in the long run, as censorship itself.
Once a paper admits any principle of censorship for survival, the we-don't-want-to-do-it-but-we-don't-want-to-lose-the-printer kind of censorship, it jeopardizes the integrity of its editorial principle. It's better to print and be damned, because you'll be damned anyway.
Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle - the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative.
In many countries in the Middle East - and this is changing in the wake of the Arab Spring - but for a long time, censorship of books and film was a very big deal. There were books you couldn't buy; things with political content would be censored, but there were some genres of books and film that the censors just didn't understand.
While the Internet is censored in China, the censorship is allowing a level of speech to take place that's unprecedented.
I am against censorship. I don't think there is anything more stupid than censorship.
The principle of happiness should be like the principle of virtue: it should not be dependent of things, but be a part of personality [and character].
In France now, there's no problem with official censorship. Once your movie is finished, you always are R-rated. My movie is just R-rated in France. But when you meet French producers with a script like mine, they behave like the most fragile chickens in the world. They just tell you "Oh, no. You should cut this. You should cut that." And at the end you have been totally censored on the synopsis, and then on the script.
Tis against some mens principle to pay interest, and seems against others interest to pay the principle.
The principle, that should be a fundamental principle in our democracy, the principle of "one person, one vote," says that the vote of every American should count equally. And if it does, Hillary Clinton should be the president of the United States.
Jokes are great capsules of information. I think they should never be censored. They often are offensive - and we're offended by different things - but I believe deeply in what Freud wrote of their relationship to the unconscious, which is that jokes come to help us. We laugh so as to dispense with, or to express, some ambivalence or discomfort with the things around us. That's what laughing is: a release.
By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature.
And although I'm all for freedom of expression and against censorship, there are certain things I'm not willing to go to jail for.
I have a very specific definition of censorship. Censorship must be done by the government or it's not censorship.
Let us be clear: censorship is cowardice. ... It masks corruption. It is a school of torture: it teaches, and accustoms one to the use of force against an idea, to submit thought to an alien "other." But worst still, censorship destroys criticism, which is the essential ingredient of culture.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!