MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Tells Viewers If They're Too Stupid They Can Change the...
A Year After Biden Said We 'Ended Cancer' Patients Continue Dying From Shortages...
Pfizer CEO Proudly Boasts of Saving the World from COVID
The Time Has Come to Get Serious About Punishing and Removing Campus Tyrants
A Heartbeat Away: Supercut of Kamala Harris' Word Salad Is MAJOR Cringe
Columbia Law Students Urge School to Cancel Exams, as Violence has Left Them...
Biden Bullied Into Breaking Silence, Reality for Spoiled Students!
Call a WHAAMBULANCE: Univ of South Florida Senior Whines After Suspension for Planning...
Based: John Fetterman Says There Are Two Types of Protesters - Pro-Hamas and...
Reporter Asks KJP the PERFECT Follow-Up After She Again Claims 'the President Was...
Finally, the Truth! UCLA Protest Spokesperson Shows What Protests Are REALLY About
TikTok Trans Activists Are Now Talking About ‘Eight Person Trans Polycules’?
Hollaria Briden Takes Pro-Hamas Protester Hayley Becker to the WOODSHED With Hilarious Thr...
Boom! Meghan McCain Asserts Pro Palestine Demostration Images Will Help Trump Win Election
COLLUSION: Damning Thread Shows Plans for Campus Unrest Started in November

Twitter Files Extra: The Australian government’s censorship requests

Matt Taibbi introduced this latest turn in the Twitter files:

Advertisement

So… here… we… go!

Social cohesion? The (American) Supreme Court once had something to say about the First Amendment and social cohesion:

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, … is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. … There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

Advertisement

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) (Citations removed.) Naturally, there is nothing wrong with the government promoting social cohesion by means unrelated to the suppression of speech, but to do it by censorship is wrong.

But of course creating a standardization of ideas is the entire point of these censors down under:

And their censorship was not limited to their borders:

Advertisement

That link in turn links to the article in the Australian mentioned by Mr. Taibbi at the beginning, but its behind a paywall and we are cheap.

Some interesting reactions:

Australia more than most.

Advertisement

That seems like a useful resource.

***

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement