Nothing in that entire post contradicted anything I said. The closest is pointing out that the specific aspects of Hunter Biden coverage the Biden campaign wanted covered up were nude photos of Biden with blurred genitalia. The fact that the photos were illegal doesn't mean they weren't in the public interest, plenty of illegal material is in the public interest, see e.g. the Pentagon papers. In my opinion evidence of sexual impropriety by a prospective presidential candidate's son is in the public interest. It would be the same if similar things about Donald Trump Jr or Trump himself were released - you don't get a pass on explicit coverage of your private material just because you really believe the public doesn't deserve to know. It's not morally equivalent to revenge porn to release compromising images of people in positions of power trying to hide their conduct. If the 'pee tapes' of Trump exist, I want them released too, and I suspect everyone pearlclutching about Hunter Biden's privacy would too.
It's also worth noting that these pictures weren't released and widely publicised in a vacuum. I think it would be a good argument that releasing the pictures specifically wouldn't be in the public interest if they were described in sufficient detail elsewhere and accepted as such. But that was not the case, as the article you linked admits. As soon as the Hunter Biden story broke, the DNC machine and all the party faithful leapt on calling it fake news, asserting that it was manufactured or doctored information. I was on Twitter when it broke, I remember being one of the only sane voices expressing concern about the (ultimately true) allegations, I got dogpiled relentlessly by Dem party faithfuls for doing so. There are still people who believe that, and mentioning the (true) story still gets people jumping down your throat in certain circles. That viewpoint wasn't just randoms on Twitter, major news organisations refused to cover the story despite clear evidence that it was true (if you were willing to actually look at the material, it was very clearly just as credible as other major leaks that did get covered). In an environment where large numbers of people and even news organisations are denying true information, whether due to political influence or because it was 'their side' or they believed the Russians were responsible etc, that changes the calculus of what is in the public interest to release. When a story is calcifying around the Hunter Biden story being basically false, releasing actual images that are consistent with the story's factuality is in the public interest. I believe that because I believe it's more important that the public know the truth about a public figure than that the privacy of the son of a presidential candidate and career politician is protected.
The reality is that a large portion of the less-conservative, Democrat-aligned media and Twitterati refused to cover a true story that was damaging to their preferred candidate, and a substantial portion of them stated confidently and untruthfully that it was a faked story. The Biden campaign requested the removal of specific posts publicly sharing evidence that verified the leaks weren't faked whole cloth, with the stated reason that those posts violated Twitter's policy (they did, and the author admits that Twitter's policy was deeply flawed in at least some respects). Using legal mechanisms to suppress inconvenient information is still a cover-up. If you don't want to call that a cover-up, fine, but I think that is incorrect and likely partisan. Almost-certainly-Musk stepping in to ban reporting on a Matt Walsh leak in the public interest is almost certainly completely legal and compliant with Twitter's policy, but it is still a cover-up and still wrong.
All the stuff about First Amendment etc is wrong and stupid, but I didn't say anything about that and wouldn't because I don't believe it.
Upvote
-49
(2
/
-51)