A Quote by Pamela Wallin

The only way to ensure that you and those you agree with have the right to speak is to support the right to speak of those you despise or do not like - the people with whom you do not agree.
The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with.
There is a First Amendment right to speak in a encrypted way.... The right to speak P.G.P. is like the right to speak Navajo. The Government has no particular right to prevent you from speaking in a technical manner even if it is inconvenient for them to understand.
We must first listen, then speak - with humility - to genuinely hear the perspectives of those with whom we don't immediately or instinctively agree.
We in the Netherlands have the right to demonstrate and the right to speak up if we don't agree with something.
I speak not for myself but for those without voice... those who have fought for their rights... their right to live in peace, their right to be treated with dignity, their right to equality of opportunity, their right to be educated.
I speak not for myself, but so those without a voice can be heard. Those who have fought for their rights. Their right to live in peace. Their right to be treated with dignity. Their right to equality of opportunity. Their right to be educated.
We must speak first about the division of land and about those who cultivate it: who should they be and what kind of person? We do not agree with those who have said that property should be communally owned, but we do believe that there should be a friendly arrangement for its common use, and that none of the citizens should be without means of support.
The ultimate test of our integrity is not how we deal with those whom we agree but how we deal with those who we do not agree.
I've said to workers that I don't care what you agree with me on politically - I hope it's as many things as possible - but one thing that you and I absolutely agree on is that your right to organize, your right to a good wage, your right to benefits, your right to participate in the value that your hard work creates.
Religion is all based on the mentality of "I'm right", but now today it's moved from even the question of "I'm right and I'm willing to tolerate those who agree that I am right or those who don't disturb me anyway". Now, it's a question of "If you do not accept that I'm right, I have a right to kill you". That is the mentality of religious fundamentalism today. That is the meaning of the kind of terror which we are witnessing today, that everybody is expendable who do not actually physically line up behind me.
There may be people in my audience who may not agree with me on some particular issue - you know, say, as a gun owner, they may not agree with me, or, you know, someone may not agree with me on a gay marriage topic. Any of those things. But those shouldn't be the reasons you listen to my music.
The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support.
The violent subjugation of the Palestinians, Iraqis, and Afghans will only ensure that those who oppose us will increasingly speak to us in the language we speak to them—violence.
How any human being ever has had the impudence to speak against the right to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination. Here is a man who speaks-who exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration possible beyond the liberty to speak against liberty-the real believer in free speech allowing others to speak against the right to speak?
I'm a strong believer in free speech to the degree that I support everybody's right to speak, including those whose views I find disgusting.
This is a mournful discovery. 1)Those who agree with you are insane 2)Those who do not agree with you are in power.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!