Kristof Screws the Pooch: Supposed Medical Journals Backfire Spectacularly
Ro Khanna: SC, Where First Shot of Civil War Was Fired, Denies Blacks...
Someone Call a Priest Because Kash Patel Just BURIED Chris Van Hollen Over...
Pro-Hamas Marchers Wave Hezbollah Flag Outside Brooklyn Synagogue; Harmeet Dhillion Is on...
‘Be Nice to Me’: Dem CA Gov Hopeful Becerra Begs Reporter for Friendly...
Kevin Hart's Roast Proves Once and for ALL that Woke Is DEAD (and...
NYT Denies Rumor It’s Considering Retracting Nicholas Kristof’s Israeli Dog-Rape Piece
The New Midterm Outlook Has Hakeem Jeffries Sweating
Ken Cuccinelli's Thread Detailing Virginia Dems Latest Efforts to Overturn Redistricting R...
Bless Her HEART! Jessica Tarlov Jumping on the Cotton-Pickin' Shame Wagon to Dunk...
The Cotton-Pickin' Left Tries to Force Jen Kiggans to Resign ... Over a...
Got a PROBLEM With That?! Kevin O'Leary UNLOADS on Bakari Sellers for Divisive,...
Stacey Abrams Subpoenaed for Some Pretty MASSIVE Campaign Finance Violations
And Here We GOOO: Scott Jennings SHUTS DOWN Dems Who Want Racist Districts...
Thomas Massie Allegations, Reportedly From His Ex-GF, Making the Rounds on X and...

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