In Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski (77 NY2d 235 [1991], cert denied 500 US 954 [1991]) Judge Kaye, writing for the majority, concluded that the New York State Constitution provides more protection for speech than does the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Kaye wrote that: "This State, a cultural center for the Nation, has long provided a hospitable climate for the free exchange of ideas ( Matter of Beach v. Shanley, 62 NY2d 241, 255-256 [Wachtler, J., concurring]). That tradition is embodied in the free speech guarantee of the New York State Constitution, beginning with the ringing declaration that 'every citizen may freely speak, write and publish ... sentiments on all subjects.' (NY Const, art I, 8.) Those words, unchanged since the adoption of the constitutional provision in 1821, reflect the deliberate choice of the New York State Constitutional Convention not to follow the language of the First Amendment, ratified 30 years earlier, but instead to set forth our basic democratic ideal of liberty of the press in strong affirmative terms (see, Forkosch, Freedom of the Press: Croswell's Case, 33 Fordham L Rev 415 [1965])." (Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, at 249.) The Court stated that New York is "a cultural center for the Nation, [and] has long provided a hospitable climate for the free exchange of ideas." The Court further cited article I, 8 of the New York Constitution as reflecting the deliberate choice of the New York State Constitutional Convention not to follow the language of the First Amendment, ratified 30 years earlier, but instead "to set forth our basic democratic ideal of liberty of the press and strong affirmative terms." (Id.)