Ex Biden Cheerleader Hakeem Jeffries Gets Projection Nuked After Saying Trump's 'Embarrass...
VA State Delegate Introduces Bill Banning the Government From Verifying Eligibility of Non...
Wholly Ignorant: Hakeem Jeffries Skips Over His Deranged Team Storming a Church to...
Scott Bessent Roasts Gavin Newsom by Saying He’s an ‘American Psycho’ Version of...
Dumb Tantrum: Jasmine Crockett Loses Her Mind Over Officers Hurt on J6 While...
Gavin Newsom Seems Upset Trump's Not Going to Invade Greenland (RIP to Another...
Brave ICE Commander Pelted with Food by Radical Protesters—Refuses to Back Down in...
Congressman's Defense of Bill Clinton During Contempt Hearing Contains ZERO Dem Self-Aware...
Is The World Breaking? From Gavin Newsom's Kneepads to the Criminals Democrats Protect
Lefty Meltdown of the Day: Jamie Bonkiewicz Declares the Trump Admin Baby Boom...
Trump Eviscerates Gavin Newsom in Front of World Elites at Davos
Al Gore Is Still Ranting About the Climate Apocalypse, But No One Cares...
Lefty Infighting Hits Rock Bottom: JoJoFromJerz and Keith Edwards in a Grift- Showdown...
'PURE GOLD!' At Davos, Trump Roasted French President Macron and Let Rep. Ilhan...
Remember When Obama Bestowed a Medal Upon Tom Homan? NOW Look What the...

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