Whenever it's suggested that our sponsors have some kind of influence or control of what we cover in some kind of censorship through financial pressure, it's rubbish. That's never happened.
The censorship is such on television in the U.S. that films like mine don't stand a chance.
I suppose that writers should, in a way, feel flattered by the censorship laws. They show a primitive fear and dread at the fearful magic of print.
I mean, believe me, I'm not for censorship.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but, unlike charity, it should end there.
Pontius Pilate was the first great censor and Jesus Christ the first great victim of censorship.
In any event, the proper question isn't what a journalist thinks is relevant but what his or her audience thinks is relevant. Denying people information they would find useful because you think they shouldn't find it useful is censorship, not journalism.
I am seriously opposed to censorship of any sort.
The only place we were really told to tone it down - where other people would use the word censorship, but I wouldn't - was when we did MTV right after the Beavis and Butt-head thing.
The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship.
I know that many writers have had to write under censorship and yet produced good novels; for instance, Cervantes wrote Don Quixote under Catholic censorship.
We Negro writers, just by being black, have been on the blacklist all our lives. Censorship for us begins at the color line.
They still had the Lord Chamberlain, so we had this idiotic censorship. We were allowed three Jesus Christs instead of 10. Why three were OK, I don't know.
Censorship is the height of vanity.
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.