The Hunter Biden Laptop Story Makes Another Case Against ‘Misinformation’ Bans

One more example of the dangers associated with fighting “misinformation” is this: In certain media and political circles, it is becoming more popular to state that social media should be harder at denying false information. Tech companies have been threatened with serious consequences by lawmakers if they fail to combat fake news. But the idea that these companies could ever do this adequately is laughable—something driven home by new reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In October 2020, we will be back New York Post first reported on the laptop—allegedly left by President Joe Biden’s son at a computer repair shop and containing emails about Hunter’s work for Ukrainian energy company Burisma. These emails indicated that Burisma had paid Hunter for access to his father.

Prestige media quickly covered the story and Democrats denounced it. They characterized it both as an attempt to discredit Joe Biden and possibly another Russian attempt to influence a U.S. Presidential election. Some left-leaning politicians frowned on even mentioning the matter to condemn it.

Facebook temporarily blocked distribution because of this powerful narrative. PostTwitter temporarily stopped users sharing this story.

Now, The New York Times—which was critical of the Post story when it came out—has published a piece backing up many of the PostThese were the initial statements. This article outlines how the U.S. Department of Justice investigated Hunter Biden in relation to possible violations of taxes, foreign lobbying, money laundering, and other laws.

Federal prosecutors “had examined emails…from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop,” the TimesBefore going on to discuss the content of certain emails, reports were made. According to the report, these emails were authenticated “by people who are familiar with them and have been involved in their investigation.”

So, a story which seemed implausible at first turned out to be true.

How can this be a lesson?

The moral of the story isn’t that everyone was inherently wrong. Question The Post‘s reporting. “There are reasons to doubt the Post“Story,” There are reasonsJacob Sullum, yesterday’s commentator. The impetus for a ban on all such discussion was not right.

It led to social media firms concealing truths in order to combat misinformation. It discouraged media outlets to investigate the matter. PostThese allegations are serious. It helped people remain in the dark about Biden’s son’s business transactions.

This whole mess has an identical structure as the news cycle about lab leak theory. Reputable sources first decried the notion that COVID-19 was born not in Wuhan, but nearby at virus research laboratories. Again, social media companies were encouraged to—or in some cases did—limit stories suggesting a lab leak had launched the pandemic. Then, months down the road, the lab leak hypothesis was vindicated—not necessarily as true (we’ll probably never know) but as something at least plausible.

Both stories received initial skepticism, which is normal. However, people quickly jumped to call them misinformation or suggest they shouldn’t be shared. Both stories proved to be more credible than initially thought.

Twitter and Facebook, for example, are private entities that have the ability to decide what information they will allow or not. These social media companies were acting not in isolation, but with constant and ongoing threats from the government to be punished if they did not stop spreading misinformation.

There are many reasons why misinformation bans do not work. One reason is the difficulty of determining truth. It seems that the real lesson here is to not let politicians, journalists, media outlets, and tech executives determine the truth.


Putin’s demands.Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear his requirements for a peaceful settlement with Ukraine in a telephone conversation with Turkish President Recep Takyip Erdogan. According to the BBC, “Chief between them” is an agreement by Ukraine that it should remain neutral and not apply for membership of NATO. More:

This category also has other requirements that are primarily face-saving for Russia.

To ensure that Ukraine is not a Russian threat, it would need to be disarmed. The protection of the Russian language would also be required in Ukraine. There is also something known as de-Nazification.

It is deeply offensive for Mr Zelensky who himself is Jewish. Some of his relatives also died during the Holocaust. However, the Turkish side thinks it will be simple enough to allow Mr Zelensky accept. Maybe it is enough that Ukraine condemns all forms of neo-Nazism, and promises to crack down.

That second group will be the hardest. Mr Putin indicated in a telephone call that face-to–face negotiations with President Zelensky would be required before any agreement can be made on those points. Already, Mr Zelensky stated that he is willing to meet with the Russian President and have a one-on-one conversation.

This second group included requests related to eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region..


Fiona Apple, a musician is supporting Maryland’s measures that allow for easier access to court proceedings.You can find the bills hereS.B. H.B. 469, H.B.

It is “crunch time.” tweetedScott Hechinger is a civil rights attorney. It’s not just Maryland, it is about open courts across the nation. MD has the opportunity to set the tone for transparency—an opportunity we can not afford to let pass by.”


Missouri’s laws can be used to prevent Missourians from visiting abortion clinics outside the state. It’s not exactly. However, it could be dangerous for someone to give help to a pregnant lady. State Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R–St. Louis), has proposed a bill to make it more difficult to get pregnant across state lines. It would allow private citizens to sue any person who aids or assists someone to have an abortion outside of the state.

Citigroup and other companies could have been targeted by the Missouri law. Citigroup is now helping to fund workers who are traveling from states where there are strict abortion laws. According to this company, “In response to changing reproductive health care law in some states in the U.S.A., we will provide travel benefits beginning in 2022 in order to facilitate access to sufficient resources.”

Caroline Kitchener writes that “Abortion Rights Advocates” claim the measure to be unconstitutional as it allows states to adopt laws out of their control. However, Missouri’s Republican-led legislature supports creative anti-abortion legislation. The Washington Post. “The antiabortion movement could use this measure to broaden its influence in states other than those that have already tightened restrictions. If the Supreme Court makes a decision to repeal its landmark abortion rights precedent, it will likely do so.

Following the Texas S.B., private suits can now be brought against abortion-related parties. 8 with the Supreme Court ruling that, due to the fact that the law is not enforced through state officials but by private suits, preemptive blocking was impossible. S.B. 8. Abortion was banned after detectable fetal cardiac activity, which occurs approximately six weeks before the due date. The law was implemented last September. Women are able to circumvent it by travelling out of state and getting abortion pills via the mail since then.

Earlier this month, Idaho passed a similar law—though it was slightly more limited in scope in that it only allows family members of someone getting an abortion to sue abortion doctors.

Tennessee currently considers a more extreme, but similar version of S.B. 8. “The Tennessee model introduced Tuesday would have all abortions banned, rather than giving a patient a six week window. It would still be difficult to challenge legal issues, however it would look similar to Texas’s model,” says the Associated Press.


• “Despite public assertions that it had gone dormant, a multi-agency task force consisting of federal, state, and local police that was created to monitor protests in Minnesota during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin continued to operate in secret after the trial’s conclusion,” the MIT Technology Review reports.

• The U.S. “can’t fund COVID treatments for the uninsured because we spent trillions of COVID aid on wasteful garbage,” writes This is the ReasonEric Boehm,.

• Moderna is seeking authorization for a second COVID-19 booster for all adults.

• Lawyer and author Jeff Kosseff explains “how corporate criticism threatened online anonymous speech.”

• “The Federal Trade Commission will not challenge Amazon’s acquisition of MGM Studios after the agency’s commissioners split on bringing a suit,” according to Politico.

There are reasonsNatalie Dowzicky, the Founder of’s Natalie Dowzicky discusses the controversy around Lia Thomas (a transgender woman who won NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming Championship).

• Santa Barbara lawmakers want to declare Chick-fil-A a public nuisance.

• Some good news for the criminal justice reform movement in Tennessee: