Bill Kristol: ‘MAGA Types’ a Half Century Ago Denounced ‘Agitators’ Giving Bull Connor...
Rep. Ilhan Omar Calls Elon Musk 'One of the Dumbest People on Earth'
VP of Saint Paul City Council Organizing Grocery Runs for Illegals So They...
LA Times: Billionaires Flee State When It Asks for ‘A Little Something Back’
Law Prof Claims Minnesota Is a ‘Separate, Sovereign’ Entity Entitled to Enforce Its...
Kristi Noem Calls on Jake Tapper to Call Out the Rhetoric of Jacob...
Lee Zeldin and Richard Grenell Call 'Fake News' on the NY Times for...
RFK Delivered More Vaccine Clarity Than We Could've Ever Hoped for
Donald Trump Jr. Noticed What Open Border, Anti-ICE Hypocrite Celebs Did NOT Say...
Just LEAVE Already: Senior Ilhan Omar Staffer BEGS Other Countries for Help
Paid Agitator Storms Into MN Newscast and WATCH What She Does After Finding...
'Soy El Dweebo': Eric Swalwell's Personal Cringe Reel Gets a Hilarious New Addition
Joe Scarborough Panics Live on 'MSNow,' Blows Dem ICE Shooting Narrative
Open Border Celebs Want 'ICE OUT' but Try Sneaking Into Their Awards Show...
Is the Iranian Regime Finally Collapsing? Here's What the Media Isn't Telling You.

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