Dingbat Federal Judge Marsha J. Pechman attempts to legalize all property damage in...
'UNREAL'! Videos show impact as baseball-sized hailstorm hit Hot Springs, Arkansas
Lefty tattoo loser threatens Conservatives who come to his shop and it does...
Speaker Kevin McCarthy asks reporters why Senator Biden would have classified docs
CNN reports that Daniel Penny has been indicted
Mike Pence and Clay Travis spar over possible Trump pardon and sparks fly
'See you next week Adam': Rep. Anna Paulina Luna isn't done with Schiff...
Biden's preferred parish celebrating an LGBTQ Pride Mass
Facebook's 'fact-checkers' censored the Wuhan lab-leak theory
Shelby Steele's son has a story about how bad it is in San...
Rep. Adam Schiff spikes the ball after 20 Republicans help save him from...
The Defense Department's Pride event 'gets more bizarre with scrutiny'
The UN is getting in on the 'disinformation' grift
This Covid-related video of HHS Secretary Becerra is from this month, NOT 2...
Jerry Nadler Claims It Would Be 'Child Abuse' to Not Mask Two-Year-Olds

Twitter Files Extra: The Australian government’s censorship requests

Matt Taibbi introduced this latest turn in the Twitter files:

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.

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:

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.

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