The EU's Official Statement on De-Maduroing Venezuela Is as Useless as You'd Expect
Leo Terrell: 'Democrats Are Lying to Americans'
Cory Booker Using the Constitution to Shame Congress Over Maduro Raid Is Just...
Venezuela Libre! Maduro's Arrest Has Venezuelans Around the World Dancing in the Streets
Jonathan Turley Comments on the Use of Military Forces Without a War Declaration
'ABSURD'! Marco Rubio OWNS Margaret Brennan in HEATED Back and Forth Over Trump's...
WATCH Chris Murphy's FACE When Dana Bash (Yes, That Dana Bash) Calls Him...
'The Irony. The SIZZLE': Hilarious Thread Highlights the BEST Satirical Posts Following Fa...
2026: Happy New Year to America's 250th Birthday
BREADCRUMBS: Asra Nomani Exposes Who Organized and FUNDED Pro-Maduro Demonstrations in MUS...
Drew Holden Drops HUGE Maduro Receipt Right on 'Pack of No-Good Grifters' aka...
BOOM! Venezuelan Journo Straight-Up NUKES Mouth-Breathers Defending Maduro Because They Ha...
Read This TWICE: MN Dept. of Children 'Clears' Fraudulent Somali Daycares, There's Just...
This YOU? X Hands DAMNING Mirror to Former 'Border Czar' Kamala for Trying...
Tomb Kaboom! Minneapolis Socialists March to Protest the U.S. Bombing of Hugo Chávez’s...

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