NYT: Automakers Want Trump to Keep Biden EV Mandates in Place
No Experience Necessary: Kamala HQ TikTok Team Was Nothing But Gen Zers
Girl Allegedly Sexually Assaulted by Venezuelan Illegal Living in Family's Basement
Did Pam Bondi Really Steal a St. Bernard? Journalism Has Gone to The...
MSNBC Contributor Asks If We Want Someone Who Made Terror Watch List as...
ABC News Tell You How to Join Bluesky
Will 'Journos' Ever Learn?: X is the Mainstream, Not The Atlantic and Other...
Conservatives Not Pleased With Trump's Labor Secretary Nominee
Mayor of Denver Seems to Walk Back Threat to Use Police to Prevent...
Chief Diversity Officer at the NIH Retiring at the End of the Year...
Mark Cuban Goes Full BlueAnon Accusing Elon Musk of Having Bot Army
Trump's Surgeon General Nominee Praised Facebook for Its Censorship During COVID
Biden Says He Left the Country Better Off Than 4 Years Ago (Which...
WH's 'Building a Better Future' Post With Pic of Kamala Harris Waving Goodbye...
U.N. Secretary-General Seems a Bit Concerned His 'Climate Finance' Is Drying Up

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