Jamaal Bowman Pulls the Alarm: The NFL is 'Afraid' of Shedeur Sanders Because...
'Been Owed This for 5 Years'! Scott Jennings Calls Out Randi Weingarten's Lies...
Up Next for Dem Sen. Chris Van Hollen: Margaritas With Judge Dugan?
Massive Explosion Rocks Iranian Port of Bandar Abbas Causing Widespread Damage, Injuries (...
'This Is a Crime'! CNN Legal Analyst Throws a Wrench In Dems' Narrative...
Milwaukee Democrat Rep Encourages People to Obstruct ICE from Arresting Criminal Illegal A...
Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panelists on Why an Activist Judge’s Arrest Had to...
FOIA Revelation: Biden White House Labeled Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers...
Ken Dilanian Loved Going After Trump but Thinks Arresting Judges Who Break the...
As More Activist Judges Get Arrested Let’s Remind Democrats that ‘No One Is...
Writer and Pop Culture Expert Says Draft Overlooking Shedeur Sanders is Like Whipping...
Epstein Accuser and Abuse Survivor Virginia Giuffre Found Dead by Suicide
Jamie Raskin is OUTRAGED that a Judge Could Face Justice for Allegedly Helping...
Kash Patel's 'No One Is Above the Law' Judicial Perp Walk Pic Is...
Guy Benson Questions 'Dill'-emma: Friend Ousted from Pickleball League Over Politics

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