||12 TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL REYNOLDS LECTURE intent, the Bill of Rights seeks to "protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations." 8 There is a further conclusion to be drawn â€" one which has special significance for our times. The rights enumerated, and the spirit which motivated them, reveal a new nation unafraid of the critic, the dissenter, the nonconformist. Though weak, inexperienced, and surrounded by hostile neighbors, this new nation readily embraced the dangers of freedom rather than accept the blight of authoritarian control. Free speech, for example, was not reserved to those who approved governmental action, nor was the right to publish confined to those who applauded the mores and beliefs of the majority. The Constitutional prescriptions were that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech; that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. While it may readily be conceded that these phrases were not intended as absolutes, it must also be acknowledged that they manifest that any interference can be justified only under extraordinary and extreme circumstances. These rights and others to which reference has been made evidenced faith in an atmosphere conducive to a wide latitude of beliefs, and, more significantly, faith in free access to the avenues by which such beliefs are promoted. Translated into a creed for government, these faiths prescribed vast areas, particularly in the field of human liberty, where men were to be free â€" free to think, to inquire, to complain, to compare, to espouse, and to experiment.9 V. I am painfully aware that much of what is contained in the foregoing paragraphs is common knowledge. I am also conscious of the fact that most Americans would readily pay homage to the principles enunciated. Unfortunately, however, such homage terminates too frequently in lip service, for recent history amply demonstrates that far too many of us have failed to respond to actions which violated these principles, even though such violations were to an extent unparalleled in American history. I further submit that for one reason or another we fail today to show that these concepts are fighting faiths. As previously observed, the primary cause for recent wholesale intrusions into the thoughts, beliefs, and associations of the individual is our overwhelming concern for security of the state. Such concern always jeopardizes individual rights, for as Hamilton observed, regretfully, when danger threatens, citizens "to be more safe, .. . become willing to run the risk of being less free." 10 It is of course right that our government and its people be alert to 8. Ibid. 9. See Gellhorn, Security, Loyalty, and Science 154 (1950). 10. The Federalist No. 8, at 42 (Mod. Lib. ed., 1937) (Hamilton).