BREAKING: Another Officer-Involved Shooting In Minneapolis As ICE Agent Is Attacked
Wife, Family of Renee Good Hire Lawyer Who Represented George Floyd’s Family
Woman Calls for Liberals to Target ICE Agent in Her Neighborhood, Finds Out
David Frum Says Trump Allows Iranian Protesters to Die While Preparing to Kill...
TRIGGERED: Here's the Kind of Shrieking That ICE Agents Have to Put Up...
Independent Woman Ambassador Allie Coghan on Her Lawsuit and Greek Life Nightmare
Protester Says Officers Shot Him in the Face at Close Range With Non-Lethal...
Daily Beast Gloats Over 'Whistleblower’ Revealing Personal Data of ICE Agents in Data...
House Oversight Posts Audio and Video From Hillary Clinton's Deposition (When's the Arrest...
Bluesky Takes a Shot at X While Recognizing It as the 'Global Town...
Illegal Tries to Ram His Way Out of ICE Vehicle Blockade; One Officer...
Here's How Seriously ANOTHER Dem Takes Their Warning About Devastation Climate Change Will...
Democrats' Perfect Spokesman: Guy Who Struggles with English Demands We Abolish Border Cop...
Perfect Zeros From The Judges: The Lincoln Project's Epic Anne Frank Faceplant
MS NOW's Lawrence O'Donnell: 'Every Video From Every Angle' Shows Renée Good Posed...

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