To force a lawyer on a defendant can only lead him to believe that the law contrives against him.

I shall not attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description (of pornography), and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face.

The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights.

To force a lawyer on a defendant can only lead him to believe that the law contrives against him.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material but I know it when I see it.

The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.