NBC News: Judges Who Ruled Against Trump Say Harassment and Threats Have Upended...
Tim Walz Says ICE Raids Are What Happens ‘When They No Longer Hide...
Ho Ho No: Libertarian Compares Santa to Illegals, Gets Ratio'd Into the North...
Former EU Commissioner Butthurt About Being Banned From the US for Censorship
Derek Hunter Violated X's Rules Against Hateful Content With Post About Jennifer Welch
Peak Christmas Nerdery: Full Probability Analysis of Why the Home Alone Family Slept...
Margaret Sullivan Says Journalism's Goal Is to 'Afflict the Comfortable and Comfort the...
Conservative Clash: Bari Weiss Allegedly Turns on Megyn Kelly After She Snubs CBS...
A Warm AI Christmas Card From The Democrats, But Not Really
Cali's Insane Solution to Wildfires: Force 2M Homeowners to Rip Out Gardens Instead...
Katie Miller Hits Taylor Swift's Donation to Feeding America With a Reality Check
Merry Christmas from the Map-Challenged: Jesus the Palestinian, According to Clueless Left...
'You Know Who I Am': Former RI Mayoral Candidate 'Abused' by Cop Who...
Belated Festivus Grievances: X's Broken Algo, Scams Stealing Billions, and Anti-Semitism C...
ICE Aims to Speed Up Deportations by Renovating Warehouses to Hold 80,000 Illegals...

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