… one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric
Cohen v. California
403 U.S. 15 (1971)
When we take our seats on the bench we are not struck with blindness, and forbidden to know as judges what we see as men [and women].
Tummino v. Hamburg, No. 12-CV-763 (ERK)(VVP) 4 April 2013
citing Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F. Cas. 252, 255 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879)
In a society that abhors censorship and in which policymakers have traditionally placed the highest value on the freedom to communicate, it is unrealistic to conclude that statutory authority to regulate conduct implicitly authorized the Executive to regulate speech.
Stevens dissent
Rust v. Sullivan
500 U.S. 173 (1991)
Thus, even though the act may provide incriminating evidence, a criminal suspect may be compelled … to make a recording of his voice.
United States v. Hubbell
530 U.S. 27, 34–35 (2000), citing
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
A peculiarity of the situation is that the parents of this odd creature—the courts—do not realize, despite the labor pains of its birth, that they have brought forth a child. This article is written for the benefit of lawyers and courts of the States that have produced the new offspring, so that they may see that it is a new creature, and that it is ugly and illegitimate and ought promptly to be strangled.
Charles E. Carpenter, 17 S. Cal. L. Rev. 347 (1943-1944)