Sorry, WHAT? Scott Jennings Takes Holier-Than-Thou Lefty Claiming Repubs Have No Moral Com...
Karoline Leavitt Goes Straight FIRE Warning CBS Not to FAFO With Trump Interview...
Well Well Well, This Certainly Doesn't Help the Fraud-Happy Somalis
Aaron Rupar’s Snotty Question About What Trump Could do to Make the Country...
X BODIES Nobel Foundation for ELITIST Post Insisting Machado Giving Her Prize to...
Dem Ilhan Omar’s ‘Peaceful Protestors’ Rhetoric Doesn’t Reflect the Violent Reality on the...
FAFO in Real Time: Leftist Gets Secret Service Visit Over 'What She Deserves'...
Tech Workers Mistaken for ICE Agents and Accosted by Flash Mob
Tiffany Cross Accuses Pete Seat of Lying About CNN's MN Report — Then...
Hot Take: The Killing of Renee Good Was 'Rooted in Misogyny'
Kitchen Crusader: Utensil Armored Wannabe Superhero Seeks Social Justice Gets Ruthlessly M...
Two Women Plead Guilty to Running $68 Million Medicaid Fraud Scheme
While Media Looks Away, Iran Hires Terrorist Militias to Slaughter Protesters in the...
Axios: Private GOP Polls Show Declining Support for Immigration Enforcement
Jacksonville Mayor Says Video of Woman Punching Florida Trooper ‘Came From a Place...

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