Scott Jennings Erupts at WaPo Columnist for Saying Hegseth’s MAIN Qualification is Being...
The Top 5 Pete Hegseth Confirmation Hearing Moments per Collin Rugg of Trending...
Fingers Crossed (Again): NY Governor Kathy Hochul Says the NYC Subway is REALLY...
Dereliction of Duty Duo: Nero Newsom ‘Fiddled’ While Mayor Karen Bass Sipped Cocktails...
Dense, Repeat: Nero Newsom Takes His Wildfire PR Battle to MSNBC Instead of...
Sen. Angus King Says Pete Hegseth's Position Is That Torture Is OK
Nate Silver Wonders When the Pendulum Will Swing Back Toward Liberals
Scott Jennings: Democrats Sent Their Dumbest Members and They Didn’t Land a Glove...
Democrat Mark Kelly Has Positive Words for Pete Hegseth on Policy but Will...
Rep. AOC Goes on Rant About Women Bleeding Out in Parking Lots Across...
UMass Scandal: American Tax Dollars Fund App for Trans Sex Workers in Thailand,...
NYT Pentagon Correspondent 'Fact-Checks' Pete Hegseth on Racism in the Military
TikTok Ban Imminent: Users Defiantly Flood to More Chinese Apps in Massive Protest
California State Sen. Scott Wiener Adds Wildfire Proposals to Senate's 'Trump-Proofing' Bi...
FL Legislators: Backstabbing Trump and Desantis Because Who Needs Loyalty When You've Got...

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