Dem House Candidate Will Lawrence Says He Let DSA Membership Lapse for Sake...
Case Against Teen Rapist Dismissed After He Completes 'Youthful Offender' Rehab Plan
Dem Wisconsin Governor Hopefuls David Crowley and Francesca Hong Battle for Biggest Victim
Georgia State Trooper Shows How to Handle a Street Takeover
Judge Who Formerly Blocked Trump Administration Gives Green Light to Deport 350,000 Haitia...
President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders on Birthright Citizenship, Birth Tourism
Resister Says It’s Funny MAGA Never Had a Problem With Dr. Oz Being...
LIVE Election Results on Twitchy! Primary Night in Tennessee
If Students Can’t Handle Seeing Their Grades, They’re Not Ready for College
Hasan Piker Angry With Think Tank Third Way for 'Preparing for War' Against...
Canadian Lefty Lectures Americans: Melania Trump Less of a 'Real American' Than Born-In-US...
David Hogg Reminds Us It's Been Two Years of Total GOP Control and...
NYT's David French Informed of the Difference Between Nick Fuentes and Hasan Piker
Francesca Hong Spins Her Slams on Holidays With 'I'm Just Not a Fun...
Hasan Piker Tries to Backpedal on His 'America Deserved 9/11' Stance and Twitter...

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