Senator Ossoff's Disgrace: Campaigning with Despicable Lies from the Pulpit on Father's Da...
Reid, White, and Blue: Ex-MSNBC Host Says This Fourth Will Be Joy-Less and...
Awkward White Lady Energy: Spanberger’s Juneteenth Dance Goes Horribly Wrong
Ro Money Ro Problems: Dem Khanna Wants to Confiscate Billions From Elon Musk...
Europeans Taste US Suburbs and Ranch Dressing, Realize They’re Poor — Left Still...
Carpetbagger Conway's Tantrum: Flipping President Trump's Limo the Bird While Begging for...
Ruben Gallego’s Sweet Deal: Campaign Cash for Super Bowl Trips, Disney Vacations &...
NYT Turns Father’s Day Into ‘Trans Dads’ Day — And Proves How Out...
A High Percentage of Filers Got a Cut, House GOP Boasts
Leftist Meltdown: Keith Edwards Accused of Darkening Crockett's Skin After Questioning Her...
Father’s Day Through the Void: Grief, Gratitude, and the Irreplaceable Role of Good...
Sen. Rand Paul Fumes About Healthcare Expense
YIKES: Did Jasmine Crockett Just Tell Democrats to POUND SAND? Because It Sounds...
Marc Elias Tries (and Fails) to Rewrite Mail-In Ballot Voting History
How Keith Ellison Reacts to Journo Asking Him About Minnesota Fraud PROVES He...

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