February 2026

S M T W T F S
1234567
8 9101112 1314
15161718192021
22 232425262728

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Friday, July 22nd, 2005 04:03 pm
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

Justice Holmes, ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES (1919).

Это, кстати, тот самый Холмс, который выдумал пример про крик "пожар" в переполненном театре, которым сейчас любят аргументировать ограничение свободы слова - и который впоследствии в этом примере несколько разочаровался.