Failed Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate Catches Nick Sortor in a Fib (Not Really)
Sen. Mark Kelly Says He’s Seriously Considering 2028 Run
Stephen Miller Schools Sen. Chris Murphy, Who's Providing 'Oversight' in Texas
US Appeals Court Lifts Restrictions on ICE Using Force Against Protesters in Minnesota
Drew Holden Takes Apart the Media's Coverage of Baby Being Tear-Gassed by ICE
Lunatic Texas Teacher Coaches Kids on Evading ICE: Demonizing Law Enforcement with Your...
Gov. Gavin Newsom's Anti-Trump Rant at Davos Was Canceled at the Last Minute
Ted Cruz Shares a NASCAR-Level Improvement to Gavin Newsom's Photo Op With Alex...
Protesters, Clergy Call for 'State Shutdown' of Minnesota on Friday to Get ICE...
Ex Biden Cheerleader Hakeem Jeffries Gets Projection Nuked After Saying Trump's 'Embarrass...
VA State Delegate Introduces Bill Banning the Government From Verifying Eligibility of Non...
Wholly Ignorant: Hakeem Jeffries Skips Over His Deranged Team Storming a Church to...
Scott Bessent Roasts Gavin Newsom by Saying He’s an ‘American Psycho’ Version of...
Dumb Tantrum: Jasmine Crockett Loses Her Mind Over Officers Hurt on J6 While...
Gavin Newsom Seems Upset Trump's Not Going to Invade Greenland (RIP to Another...

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