Let's Check on How Many Network Evening Newscasts Mentioned the Fraud Arrests in...
Endorsed! Corrupt Clintonista Marc Elias Accidentally Makes the Best Case Ever for Harmeet...
Here's How CBS News Reported $4 Gas Under Biden vs. Trump
Vindman Outrage is the Ultimate Endorsement: Hegseth Rightly Boots Army Chief Gen. George
Newsom Press Office Follows Up 'President With a Brain' Post With Even More...
Make Military Bases Great Again: Pete Hegseth Restores God-Given 2A Rights to Servicemembe...
Thanksgiving, Rockets, and Saving the World: Libs Meltdown Over American Greatness — Cry...
Houston Calls Good Friday the 'Spring Holiday Weekend' – Because Saying 'Easter' Is...
Rep. Ro Khanna's NOT Lying for a Change (About What'll Happen If the...
Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s Parenting Tips Include Dolls for Boys and Gender-Swapping Male Bo...
NBC News: Death of Refugee Released by Border Patrol Determined to Be a...
New ‘Maryland Man’ Joins ‘Virginia Dad’ in the Headlines
Meryl Streep Tells Colbert Married Women May Be Disqualified at Voting Booth If...
The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last: ‘America Lost. Iran Won.’
This is Why Parents Are Fleeing Public Schools: NYC Teacher Calls for Seizing...

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