The eternal temptation, of course, has been to arrest the speaker rather than to correct the conditions about which he complains. […] When criminal prosecutions can be leveled against [citizens] because they express unpopular views, the society of the dialogue is in danger.
This is an astounding view of the law. I am unaware of any previous instance in which our analysis of the scope of a constitutional right was determined by looking at what a litigant asserts in his or her brief and inquiring no further.
[A]n arbitrary interference with access to important information is an abridgment of the freedoms of speech and of the press protected by the First Amendment.
“Though no one would ever think of using the term honor violence (we reserve that descriptor for brown people who live somewhere else, motivated by religious...”