Laptop

There have recently been discussions about Twitter and Facebook refusing to allow information about the Hunter Biden laptop to appear on their sites. These are private companies and can censor material they feel is inappropriate for whatever reason. When they do allow controversial information they have a protection that other media like newspapers do not have and it come from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Basically a news outlet like cable or papers can be sued if they publish information that is libel. Social media cannot be sued for libel if they remove the material when it is brought to their attention. The case of Hunter's laptop is an example of how the government can censor which is illegal. The FBI came into possession of the laptop in December of 2019. They knew it was legitimate since they had the receipt signed by Hunter and they had gotten the receipt by subpoena and they had reviewed the contents. The computer repair shop owner, John Mac Isaac, had given the laptop to the FBI in December of 2019 but by mid summer of 2020 nothing had been done about it so then John Mac Isaac, who had made a copy of the laptop, gave the information to Rudy Giuliani. On October 14, 2016 the New York Post published the laptop story as an October surprise. The government said this was Russian disinformation and suggested social media not allow this information on their sites so they refused to reprint the Post story. It was later revealed that the internal Twitter execs felt the story did not violate their policy and agreed to allow the information. This decision was opposed by Jim Baker, former general counsel for the FBI. Baker was a recent hire by Twitter and convinced Twitter to ban the laptop report. A few days later 51 former US intelligence officials signed a letter saying the laptop was Russian disinformation. Since that time and after the election the government along with all the major newspapers have conceded that the laptop was legitimate.