It is written on a piece of paper so I guess that guarantees that it is both authentic and legally enforceable.

Even so, it only mentions the equipment. Would owning the equipment grant the store ownership over all the information on the computer? Does the store gain legal authority to share that information with a third party that is neither a government official nor a journalist like Giuliani?

If you rent storage space and fail to keep up payments the ownership of any property within transfers to the storage operator. What else is a repair shop owner to do with devices that no one collects?

There is a difference between physical ownership of property and ownership of information. Imagine there is a book in that abandoned storage space. The operator will gain ownership of that copy of the book, but they aren't going to be granted copyright over the book.

But now that you have legal access to the book, you can publish citations from it under fair-use doctrine.

Sure, but fair use is a defense that needs to be argued. You can probably argue that the New York Post publishing excerpts from some of the emails should be protected by fair use. I don't see how you can argue that the store owner is protected by fair use or how the Post releasing and profiting off previously unpublished full photos of Hunter Biden qualify as fair use.

If it is not covered by fair use, then it would be at most copyright infringement, and there the rights holders can use DMCA takedown notices. There was no necessity of Twitter to engage in pro-active censorship here.

In my understanding the policy was aimed originally at stopping the spread of photos like in The Fappening hack. But there was nothing hacked here in my understanding.

In 2016 there were an audio recording of a private conversation that happened after an interview has concluded which the recording studio later used without the permission of the recorded person.

If I remember right the basis for why that was legal was that there existed an public interests to release the recording of a private conversation to the public, and that the recording equipment were legal property of the recording studio.

Four years later and the lawyers of NBC seem to have been right on that.

What do you think Occam's razor would say is more likely? That the documents in the NY Post's reporting are fabricated? (While also knowing that it's over 24 hours later and Biden's campaign has yet to deny that the emails are legitimate) or that the documents are authentic.

I'd give it at best a 50/50 likelihood of being fake, and would hope that a free and liberal society would demand a lot higher confidence than that before they start wantonly censoring things on the internet.

I wasn't saying definitively that the documents are fake. I simply have no idea whether they are authentic or not. These documents originate with Rudy Giuliani who was just revealed to be the target of a Russian disinformation campaign regarding Hunter Biden.[1] I will view anything that is coming from Giuliani with a healthy dose of skepticism until there is some outside confirmation.

However the authenticity of the documents isn't even relevant to the overall point. If they are fake, there is a crime of fraud. If they are authentic, it is likely a crime to release this information. There also doesn't appear to be any evidence of a crime committed by either Hunter or Joe Biden. Even if a meeting took place, which no one is able to confirm, that alone isn't a crime. That lack of crime would seemingly eliminate this as an example of whistleblowing. The end result is that it appears that a crime was committed just to make Biden look bad and try to turn the election in Trumps favor. I don't know why Twitter or Facebook need to allow their platforms to be a pawn in that game.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...

> Even if a meeting took place, which no one is able to confirm, that alone isn't a crime.

Except, if it did take place, Joe would be caught in another big lie because he stated he never had any dealing with Hunter's business.

How do you know that this is Russian propaganda? Any facts other than "everybody knows"?

Do you really believe that BS?