Tucker Carlson Will Be 'Tormented for a Long Time' for Playing a Part...
Talking Skit: Jake Tapper Puts in Scripted Appearance on Colbert to Promote WHCD...
Tim Walz: Democrats Would Win the ‘Battle of Ideas’ Against Republicans If Their...
Obama Bro Says Jewish Insider ‘Intentionally Misinterpreted’ Chris Murphy’s Sarcastic Twee...
Mouth-Breather Makes BIG DEAL About How SORE-EE He Is About Voting for Trump...
Democrats Dropping Like Flies: Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Quits to Dodge Expulsion Over Ethi...
Savanah Hernandez Calls CREEP Brian Shapiro OUT for Harassing Her in DMs and...
Ghost of Kyiv 2.0: Kinzinger Gets Duped by Iran — Ships Not 'Blowing...
Chuck Schumer Using Atlantic's Hit Piece to Attack Kash Patel Shows There's Something...
The Growth of Homeschooling in America
Chris Murphy Might've Just Ended His Career As Trump Names Traitors
HUME-ILIATED: Brit Hume Unloads on VA Dems and Their 'Egregious Gerrymander' Push As...
Maury Povich's Reaction to Joy Reid Claiming Democrats Play by the Rules Is...
DESPICABLE Fairfax Teachers Prove They'll Do ANYTHING to Con Virginians Into Voting Yes...
The Atlantic Hopes No One Noticed the BIG CHANGE They Made to Their...

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