Lacer-Focused? Jill Biden Entertains Idea That Joe Biden’s Drink Was Spiked Before Disastr...
Chuck Schumer’s Praise for El-Sayed’s ‘Energy’ Won’t Save Him When He’s on Receiving...
DSA and Proud: MS NOW’s Symone Sanders Tries to Help Angie Nixon Downplay...
Here Are the Real Bad Guys Behind the Suicide of DEI Fabulist Jason...
Bill Kristol Triggered That Natalie Harp Makes More Than a Sailor on the...
Sports Columnist Resigns After Paper Spikes Piece Featuring Girls Opposed to Boys in...
Never Alone in the Motherhood Trenches: Why Extended Family Is Still the Best...
Angie Nixon Thinks ‘Make America Great Again’ Means Bombing Black People
Professor Who Exposed Jason Arday As a Plagiarist Suspended by Rector Whose Speech...
Pandering 101: Stepstool Scholar El-Sayed Claims He Knows Black Life Because He ‘Reads...
Mother of Navy Sailor Tells NYT ‘They Didn’t Sign Up to Be on...
Personal Space!: Scott Jennings Faces Screaming Matches and Double Standards on Abby Phill...
Dem State Sen. Crosses Party Lines to Oppose El-Sayed, Mehdi Hasan Demands She...
Islamic Convert Who Plotted to Bomb NY Capitol Building’s Original Target Was the...
Prosecutor Reveals Karmelo Anthony Fantasized About Stabbing Someone and Licking Blood Off...

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