lol. it doesn't matter that we censored the story, it wouldn't have changed the election results. that's one way of looking at it I guess
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitte...eas-freedom-11670281265?mod=opinion_lead_pos5 Twitter’s Duty to Protect Free Speech Censorship of the Hunter Biden story might have helped my party, but it was bad for our democracy. By Ro Khanna Dec. 5, 2022 6:31 pm ET Defending free speech is easy when it’s speech you agree with. Defending speech you dislike, or speech that doesn’t advance your interests, is more challenging. But it is in exactly those uncomfortable situations that American democratic principles call on us to protect the free exchange of ideas and freedom of the press. Free speech is a foundational value of our democracy. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan(1964), which overturned a libel judgment that racist local officials had won in an Alabama court, Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Brennan noted that this speech “may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” The kind of political debates once held via letters to local papers, as well as in political ads such as the one at issue in Sullivan, have moved online, often in the form of tweets. Attacks on public officials and candidates for office have continued. This tension was on full display when the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story dropped less than a month before the 2020 election. Twitter’s suppression violated the First Amendment principles Brennan articulated in Sullivan. Twitter banned links to the story and suspended accounts that shared it, including President Trump’s press secretary and the New York Post itself—arguing that the story violated company policy because it contained information obtained through illegal means. Under the same logic, they’d have to suspend any account that posted the Pentagon Papers, which is protected by New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971), or the story of Mr. Trump’s leaked tax returns. As Silicon Valley’s representative in Congress, I reached out to Twitter at the time to share these concerns. In an email meant to be private, but recently made public by Matt Taibbi’s “Twitter Files” thread, I wrote to Twitter’s general counsel that the company’s actions “seemed to be a violation of First Amendment principles.” Although Twitter is a private actor not legally bound by the First Amendment, Twitter has come to function as a modern public square. As such, Twitter has a responsibility to the public to allow the free exchange of ideas and open debate. There are, to be sure, limits to certain types of speech. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court held that the government could prosecute speech if it will produce “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Sullivan allowed liability for false defamation of a public official in limited circumstances. But in the case of the New York Post’s laptop story, there was no threat of lawless action, and the Post would be responsible for any defamation—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act absolves Twitter of liability. I agreed with Twitter’s decision to take down explicit photos of Hunter Biden and to prevent algorithmic amplification of the Post story. But there’s a difference between sharing and artificially amplifying. Social-media companies shouldn’t have bots that amplify speech in the first place—they add chaos to the dialogue. They certainly shouldn’t be abusing people’s data by using it to target them with sensational content. We need to uphold the sovereign right to our data. Even so, the story itself shouldn’t have been censored, and those who shared it shouldn’t have been suspended. That went too far. To the extent Twitter makes value decisions on the forum—types of conspiracy theories or hate-inciting content that gets removed or isn’t promoted—the company should have clear and public criteria. Elon Musk has said Twitter will be “more aggressive than ever, using technology to reduce the reach of hateful Tweets and prevent their amplification.” Transparency into how decisions are made, including some recourse to appeal, is crucial—with some independent committee or board that will thoughtfully consider a complaint of censorship. A robust defense of First Amendment principles online is more important than ever. Citizens in our polarized country need to have conversations with each other based on mutual respect. Suppressing speech we don’t like leaves us blind to alternative perspectives that help us see the whole, complex truth. My belief in a marketplace of ideas is why I do interviews on media channels across the political spectrum. It’s why I engage perspectives different from mine, why I visit factory towns, rural areas and Republican-dominated congressional districts. Imagine if Democratic lawmakers were required to have town halls in deep red areas and Republicans in deep blue ones. There will always be extremists and partisan media outlets that increase polarization and make conversations more difficult. But we would be wise to remember the teaching of the great liberal political philosopher John Rawls: “It is extremely unwise to conceive of the ideal political society as moved by scarce supererogatory moral motives alone. That leads to hating other persons and taking pleasure in condemning them as falling short.” Rawls believed we should be humble about our own certitude of truth and not rush to condemn others who we think don’t measure up. Robust public debate is the first step in America’s healing and reconciliation. Mr. Khanna, a Democrat, represents California’s 17th Congressional District. Appeared in the December 6, 2022, print edition as 'Twitter’s Duty to Protect Free Speech'.
Usually special counsels are appointed with some level of credibility under scrutiny of potential charges. Mueller was a Republican, therefore him charging another Republican is a sign of impartiality, etc. etc. Hiring Durham would be worse than Ken Starr's appointment IMO. He's already destroyed his reputation in many ways, and proven that he'll drag out investigations and not be concerned about election cycles, etc. So I think Garland will want someone that is focused on getting the facts together (which are mostly already there since this isn't a new case), gather testimonies if needed, and make charging decisions swiftly along with some level of reporting to clear up the facts to Congress and the voters. But yeah hiring a special counsel wouldn't scare me at all. If Hunter Biden is a shadow secretary of state violating the Logan Act, then sure... we should know that, and we also should know how disinformation campaigns are being run to allow politicians to know vulnerabilities and avoid misconduct that could compromise them. That's the part I doubt the MAGA world really wants to be exposed though. You are a fool if you think this just randomly landed in the hands of Rudy Guiliani and The My Pillow Guy from a blind repair shop owner who thought the most appropriate law enforcement official to alert would be Rudy Guiliani. Those sketchy facts would inform me to believe that MAGA world really doesn't want a serious investigation of this situation at all.
One fact to note though: If we really are running with the theory that Hunter Biden was a shadow Secretary of State for the Obama admin, let's all keep in mind that the guy he and the SECRET US government were working against was Vladamir Putin.... which is a man who is recently known for bombing hospitals and children's playgrounds as well as garden variety genocide and murder. Let's not act like, even if illegal under the Logan Act, and other campaign and foreign espionage laws, Hunter Biden wouldn't have been serving American interests in the end... even if under a shady CIA type of way. ..... However all the evidence suggests he wasn't a Shadow Secretary of State but someone who got a job in the Commerce Department because of his dad (the most blatant nepotism IMO), which led to him having the experience to be an Equity partner which led to him being on the board of companies his equity firm had acquired... which happens all the time. I assume many of you don't have experience with Equity Firms, but I do, and I don't see anything blatantly fishy here with Burisma, etc. Running an Equity firm is a very unhealthy profession IMO, and I'm sure a big reason why Hunter's moral compass and sense of the need to self medicate probably came from. You are basically in charge of buying a company that hires real people, firing as many people as you can, sucking every last dollar you can out of them, cutting costs across the board, and combining them with another company you also purchased so you can repackage and sell. Your job destroys lives, and requires those people in the firm to de-humanize themselves in many ways. I would guess that's a big reason why Hunter go into drugs, hookers, etc. as a coping mechanism. With Hunter Biden's situation, I just think there's a ton of ignorance with many about what exactly Hunter Biden did for a living. The more you really understand his profession, the more it's sort of a ... Duh.... moment. Joe Biden should have advised him to take a role in HUD or something else instead of Commerce. That was Joe's biggest mistake as a parent. As a governing official, I don't really see any smoking gun here at all.
What other way is there to look at it? What voters do you think were going to change because the post did not run with the story? Use your educator words.
I don't think I'd agree that Durham's credibility is shot. He's been a federal prosecutor for a long time and has handled some high-profile cases. His recent work was politically unpopular with some and he didn't cover himself with glory with how they turned out, but that seems to me to be more the result of the circumstances than of Durham himself. I don't have a big problem with him. The laptop case looks much like his last assignment and probably wouldn't do his reputation much good. But, I am so unafraid of the results of any special counsel investigation into it that I'd like to see the most MAGA-friendly appointment you can get (while remaining professional). I don't know how good Durham's MAGA-cred is these days, but the last thing you want is more conspiracy theories about how the special counsel is just burying the bodies. My intuition is that he did take the Burisma job in part for foreign policy reasons. Calling him a shadow Sec of State is overstating it. He'd be more of a well-placed cog in the machinery to westernize Ukraine. He was never in a place to set policy, but he could help one significant company execute on detangling themselves from Russian influence, which served the Obama Admin's broader efforts to shrink Putin's power. And make some money doing it.
Can you really take a picture of your dick ... in all of its glory ... and post that on Twitter and not have that taken down?
I think had he acted professionally in the court room, and not brought frivolous prosecutions that the juries rejected then maybe. I will say though that given that he was the Special Counsel that was still investigating this same case, like... up till he lost his case, he's essentially doing the same thing that AG Garland would be asking him, and looking at the same evidence in many ways. Except a new Special Counsel would be tasked to look at other areas specifically focused on Hunter Biden, but certainly he'd probably be working with Durham in some way anyways, and Durham might as well be part of that team since this was part of his expedition if you take FoxNews and the Republicans at their word that he was also looking into Hunter Biden because of Burisma which they thought linked to the "Russia Hoax." So do I think he should be leading the SC.... no... but I don't think he's a figure at DOJ who wouldn't be involved. I'm being coy with the SOS title, but it would probably be more lobbying or foreign agent related if it was proven that he was acting in coordination with the US government while not disclosing with foreign entities. He has quite a lengthy resume actually so I would be more careful trying to be so simplistic about him just being a pawn or lobbyist. I think people haven't even really seen the work he actually did in between Commerce and Burisma. I think most of the foreign connections stemmed from when he was part of the UN World Food Pramme which seems to have opened up many investment opportunities. I wasn't in the room when Burisma invited him on their board, but I do know the timing which was that they brought him in to help clean up the reputation after they were investigated for corruption & money laundering. Hiring Hunter was a sign that they would have better oversight from respectable names on their board. Maybe he was or wasn't corrupt behind the scenes but that's innuendo until we see evidence of that. All this is to say that at the time, and now it does actually seem that Detangling Putin's strongman hand over European countries that he has over a barrel like Ukraine...(or in their case are trying to wipe off the face of the earth, and threatening to nuke) is a good thing and in Americas interest. If he was serving as a foreign agent (doubtful) to detangle Putin's grip over Europe than good for him. However I don't think that this case has evidence of that happening, and all evidence shows thus far that he was an Equity shark whose first gig led to the next gig which led to working with foreign companies like Burisma with foreign political ties. But a new Special Counsel should be free to investigate away. If he was a crooked double agent in the end then he should be locked away. F him.
This is the best statement in this thread. They've had it for over three years and so far Republican opposition research has come up with a message mentioning the "big guy" and dick pics. But they managed to turn it into a story that their base is eating up. The Hunter Biden smoking gun will come out right after Trump's heath care plan and Mexico builds the wall.
