Sentence examples for robust and wide from inspiring English sources

(I particularly recommend his "Uninhibited, Robust and Wide Open: A Free Press for a New Century," published in 2010).

After all, Justice William Brennan, writing in New York Times v. Sullivan, spoke 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".

He stated that speech should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide open and it may well cause vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials".

In 1964, Justice William J. Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open".

Given these tactics, plaintiffs never satisfactorily answer the question of how "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" speech can occur when organizations hide themselves from the scrutiny of the voting public.

Considering its fetish for free markets, the chamber's cover-up is ironic, for Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment envision a "marketplace of ideas" that is "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open".

Plaintiffs challenge BCRA's restrictions on electioneering communications on the premise that they should be permitted to spend corporate and labor union general treasury funds in the 60 days before the federal elections on broadcast advertisements, which refer to federal candidates, because speech needs to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open".

Speaking for the Court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority, "Laws like Arizona's matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand".

And, in a passage that is widely quoted, Brennan stated, "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 New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the First Amendment was used to rein in the law of libel, the Supreme Court focused on the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open".

In 1964, in a landmark opinion written by Justice William Brennan Jr., the court ruled that in the interest of "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" public debate, officials could not collect damages unless they could prove "actual malice" — that the press had acted with reckless disregard for the truth.