Whitney Cummings Admits She's Diagnosed Crazy, Then Proves It by Claiming Trump Runs...
'So Effing Effed': Nevada Dem Rep. Susie Lee Drops Vulgar Meltdown Over Trump...
WaPo Joins Lib Media Hacks Circling the Wagons in Attempt to Make Eric...
Congrats, Justice Jackson! Even Sotomayor and Kagan Think You’re the Dumbest One Now
Judicial Activism Run Amok: Obama Judge Orders Trump to Make Illegals Legal Again...
Dems Say Trump's Shattering Political Norms and Trying to Intimidate SCOTUS Justices
The 1962 Supreme Court Decision That Banned School Prayer
Sen. Amy Klobuchar Tries to Take a Jab at Trump Over Gas Prices...
'Stupid, Narcissistic Idiot': Victor Davis Hanson Recalls His Own Fang Fang Story to...
Eric Swalwell Runs to MS NOW and Claims the FBI Dropping Fang Fang...
Eric Swalwell in 2023: Don’t Take His Word He Did Nothing Wrong With...
The Rig Picture: Nancy Pelosi Warns That Trump Is Planning to Hack Our...
Hacked? UK Home Office Promises Grooming Gangs Inquiry, No More Policing of Social...
Celebs Sign Open Letter Demanding ICE Detention Facility Holding Children Be Shut Down
David French Says Trump Is the Worst Free-Speech President of His Lifetime

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