Millionaire Bernie Sanders Begs for $27 Donations to Fight Oligarchy and Get a...
Leftist Limbo: The Democrat Party’s 21% Approval Rating Has Some Wondering How Much...
Trump Announces Kash Patel's Deputy FBI Director and THIS Will DEFINITELY Ruin the...
Actress Natasha Lyonne Says the (Very Disturbing) Quiet Part Out Loud
Megyn Kelly Sheds Happy ‘White Women Tears’ Over MSNBC Jettisoning Joy Reid and...
Adam Kinzinger: Musk’s ‘Chainsaw for Bureaucracy’ Backlash Will Cut GOP in Pro-Dem Campaig...
Drastic Action: Trump White House Moving Faster than ‘News’ and Being Transparent While...
Drowning Dems: Hakeem Jeffries Sticks to Losing Script Against Trump as Party Sinks...
Spongebob Crypants: Trump and Musk Hilariously Troll Leftists Whining About Progress Repor...
Lefty Gets WRECKED for (Probably Fake) Story About Trump-Supporting Neighbor Getting Fired...
Carol Roth Gives an Example of Why 'Taking Action Now' on the Debt...
WATCH: Whistleblower Spills ALL THE TEA About Approving Social Security Disability Benefit...
Delete Your Account: Jonah Goldberg's Tweets DISGUSTING Analogy for Trump's Russia-Ukraine...
Just Stopping By to Say Hello: Israeli Jets Do a Fly By of...
Their FACES! LOL! Kamala Delivers Her Most Embarrassing and Useless Speech YET at...

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