A Quote by Yishan Wong

We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it.
A ban on a class of arms is not an 'incidental' regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.
It's no surprise to say I oppose the ban [of Donald Trump].If we only allow free speech for those we already agree with, is that free speech at all?
In Britian we have a free press. It's not a pretty press, but it's free. The people who can't bear the Daily Mail, they say: 'you should ban it'. No, no, no, no, you don't ban it... you don't buy it.
It's always easy to get people to condemn threats to free speech when the speech being threatened is speech that they like. It's much more difficult to induce support for free speech rights when the speech being punished is speech they find repellent.
I'm vociferously against any ban in the society. You have to educate people instead. When you ban something, you invoke in them the curiosity to find more about that.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal for 78 years. Did the ban make them 'more' illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.
If you have to ban something, ban products which are actually harmful for us, like cigarettes. Smoking also affects the health of people standing around you. But we won't ban such things. We're told don't eat fish, don't eat meat, don't wear miniskirts and other such things.
I legitimately wanted to know if Mayor Bloomberg was going to ban large margaritas that I cry over while on a date alone at Dallas BBQ as a part of his controversial soda ban.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson says he believes that same ruling that stopped the first version of the ban should still apply to the second version of the ban because it is basically the same ban. It is basically the same policy.
The right of free speech cannot be parceled out based on whether we want to hear what the speaker has to say or whether we agree with those views. It means, quite often, tolerating the expression of views that we find distasteful, perhaps even repugnant.
Americans have an extraordinary love-hate relationship with the rich culture they've created. They buy, watch and read it even as they ban, block and condemn it.
People of Pakistan don't want a ban on Indian content in their country, but it is their politicians who want it. In our country too, politicians want to ban their art and artists.
Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none.
Liberals talk about how evil it is, and they talk about how deadly it is. They won't ban it. If it's so bad, if it's so deadly, if it's so dangerous, if it's so harmful, if it's so mean, why don't they ban it? Just ban the product.
One would understand a ban on surrogate advertising, but to completely ban [smoking] is ridiculous, a joke taken too far.
I think a four-year ban would effectively rule out one Olympic games - a life ban is too harsh. I think everyone deserves a second chance. If you come back from missing one Olympic games and serving a four-year ban, you are a pretty determined and reformed character.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!