These Christians Risk Everything to Follow Jesus
Better Off Head? Actor John Cusack’s New High Brows Raise Low-Brow Laughs Online
End Wokeness Shows How Fast the Copy and Paste Hijacking Spin Made the...
NYTimes' Defense of Hijacking Headline Is the 'Most Unintentionally Hilarious Tweet of All...
Iran's Hail Mary Plea Just Gave Trump Everything He Needed
Socialism Is Real. It's Dangerous. And They're Organizing.
Magills Lays Out Left’s Daily Planner: Condemn Cornell 7 at Noon, Defend the...
Federal Grand Jury Indicts Foreign Nationals for Doing the Thing Dems and Media...
'I Did It for Palestine': Kyrsten Sinema’s Ex Turns Her Pricey Art Collection...
MS NOW Journo Stresses That Motive Is Still Unknown After Attempt to Crash...
Mahmoud Khalil Says America Broke Its Promise — Deport Him Quick Since It's...
Find Someone Who Loves You the Way the Media Loves Terrorists: Sick Spin...
Court Halts Christa Pike’s Execution An Hour Before She Was Due to Die...
The 'Death to America' People in Iran Have Made a US Midterm Election...
Jasmine Crockett Won’t Endorse Talarico — So a Fellow Democrat Told Her to...

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