“Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
“In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.”
— New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
「我國曾對一項原則作出意義深遠的承諾。因此，我們在這背景下考慮本案。該原則是：公共事務的討論，必須是百無禁忌 (uninhibited)、眾聲喧嚷 (robust) 和完全開放 (wide-open)，並且必須容忍對政府及公職人員激烈 (vehement)、尖酸 (caustic)，甚至有時刺耳得令人不悅 (unpleasantly sharp) 的批評.」 (Chinese translation)
「尖銳的分歧常在宗教和政治信仰的領域出現。在這兩個領域內，一個人的鄰居可能把他的信條看作是最嚴重的錯誤。正如我們所知，說服者為了說服他人接受自己的觀點，他偶爾誇大其詞，對教會或國家顯赫的人進行誹謗，甚至杜撰不實言論。但是，盱衡歷史，長遠觀之，儘管存在行為過當和濫用的可能性，這些自由對於民主制度下的公民的開明思想和正確的行為至關重要」 (Chinese translation)
— New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)