Marriage, Motherhood, and a Voucher From Day One
Jamie Raskin Says ‘Nobody Supports Hamas’ After Being Shown a Clip of Hasan...
Gee, Why Did Ilhan Omar Turn Off the Replies for This Labor Day...
Ted Lieu Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About What Must Be a...
BOOHOO! Susan Sarandon Says She's Losing Roles Because She Supports Palestine (Blaming Isr...
HAAAAA! X User Asked for the Worst Tweet Ever — X Delivered 5.6M...
Socialism 2026: Silly Socialists Spewing Solipsistic Sludge
How Hard Did Trump Laugh at Mark Kelly LASHING Out at Him in...
American Heroes of 9/11: Todd Beamer and the Passengers of Flight 93
James Talarico Just Went Full Hillary 2016 (and Hopefully With the Same Election...
Democrats RUSH to CONDEMN Attack on Amy Acton … There's Just a Few...
Well, Well, WELL: DataRepublican Thread-Drops Receipts on Anti-Trump VoteVets – GUESS Who...
Abdul El-Sayed's Reason to Abolish ICE Is Both Maddening and Moronic
Monday Morning Meme Madness
Fatal Injection: Socialist Says ‘Nursing Is Political’ and Doesn’t Start or Stop in...

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