History Teacher to Minnesota Republicans: Good Luck Winning... A State You Haven't Won...
Ding Dong! The Witch Is Gone: Teacher's Union Leader Randi Weingarten Flees X...
CBS Ditches Trans Journalists Association Guide, Mandates 'Biological Sex at Birth' — No...
Dem Ilhan Omar Demands Evidence of Criminal Illegal Alien Arrests in MN Days...
Tragic Spell: Chicago Teachers Union Deletes Post Asking ‘Governer’ JB Pritzker to Tax...
'Abolish ICE' on Ice? Political Group Advises Dem Party to Pretend NOT to...
Liberal Influencer Says She’s at the Firing Range Training to Kill ‘MAGA F**ks’
ICE Allegedly Shut Down the Oldest Mexican Restaurant in Aaron Rupar’s Hometown
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Banning Presidents From Naming Buildings After Themselves
Media Spins Mass Exodus Over ICE Shooting—Shipwreckedcrew Drops the Truth: It's All About...
NYT: MN Prosecutors Resign After Push to Investigate Renee Good’s Wife
From 'Elephants Are Not Birds' to 'Principles Are Not Permanent': Ashley St. Clair's...
From 'I'm Not a Biologist' to 'CisGINGER' Queen: KBJ Just Gave Redheads the...
Vigil Held for Father of Two Killed by Off-Duty ICE Agent
Don Lemon Asks If This Is What You Voted For, MAGA, You 'F**king...

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