'You Are Not Alone': Creator Behind Genius Spencer Pratt Ads Shares Latest and...
Roseanne Barr Says This Dan Bongino Post Added 15 Years to Her Life
Jasmine Crockett’s Dem Party Ditched Her for James Talarico, Now Rants About GOP...
Variety: Stephen Colbert’s Push Into Politics May Have Hurt the Late-Night Format
Report: ‘Bloodbath’ Brewing at NPR Over Federal Funding Cuts
Champagne Communist Hasan Piker Actively Lies to Broke Fans That More Taxes Will...
Seth Abramson Says the Insurrection Never Ended and the Christofascists Won't Stop
Secretary Rubio’s Spanish Video Exposes the Lie: Cuba’s Blackouts Are Made in Havana,...
Taylor Lorenz Declares DoorDash a Necessity Because Zoomers Lack 'Capacity' to Cook
The Love Fest is Over: Ganja Grandma vs. Governor Spanberger in Virginia Pot...
Sen. Patty Murray Butthurt That IRS Is Banned From Investigating Trump Over Past...
‘Bureaucratic Barriers’: LA Mayor Karen Bass Says Her Promise to End Homelessness Hit...
Chris Murphy: If You Lead a Campaign Against Powerful Pedophiles, You Get Drummed...
Bernie Sanders Sounds Like a Defense Attorney for Communist Cuba and Indicted Regime...
GEN WARS: Gen Z Complaining to Boomers That They’re Expected to Live on...

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