Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy Theorist Loses Defamation Case


In a David and Goliath event where this David loses but why? Delaware computer repairman, John (Mac) Isaac, sued Twitter for locking The New York Post’s account as its reporters were working on an exposé about the “lurid contents” on President Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s laptop, which was where it was repaired. So why would Isaac want the article spread far and wide? He argued that Twitter locking it was equivalent to calling him “a hacker.” His attorney argued was that Twitter’s “time-limited ban” was a violation of the companies own rules regarding the “distribution of hacked material.”

Issac filed his lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It alleged, according to The Law & Crime site:

‘Further actions taken by Defendant Twitter in response to the NY Posts’ story included limiting the distribution of the story by others on its social media platform pursuant to the same policy thereby spreading the belief among its users, including Florida resident users, that the Plaintiffs is a hacker.’

The Southern District of Florida heard Isaac’s attorney explain that releasing these tweets have caused him to receive threats so serious he had to close his computer repair business:

‘According to [Mac Isaac], Twitter’s explanations notified its users that the materials contained in the NY Post article violated its Hacked Materials Policy, thereby spreading the false belief that [Mac Isaac] is a hacker. As a result of [Twitter’s] conduct, [Mac Isaac] received threats to his person and property, and was forced to close his business.’

The Post article did not call Isaac explicitly by name. The article’s photograph of his shop was the only reason he came into the public eye, as CNN earlier reported:

‘[W]hile the Amended Complaint alleges that the NY Post “published a photo of the Repair Authorization . . . without blurring the business name thereby notifying the public where Biden had dropped off his laptop[,]” the explanations did not include the subject photo. Nor did the explanations mention [Mac Isaac], the Mac Shop, or provide any other descriptive information identifying [Mac Isaac] as a purported ‘hacker.”‘

The repairman argued:

‘[The ban] should not be evaluated in a vacuum and extrinsic evidence such as the NY Post article should be considered in order to show that the [explanations] were referring to [Mac Isaac] as a “hacker” and/or the source of the confidential information.’

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom wrote:

‘Thus, because [Mac Isaac] has asserted a claim for defamation per se, looking outside the four corners of the explanations to show that “the person defamed is plaintiff” would run afoul the very nature of a per se action.’

With minimal analysis, the court found that Isaac’s lawsuit had no merit for this reason:

‘[Twitter’s First Amendment right to moderate its own content] is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute.’

Twitter also put out a group of “high-profile tweets:”

‘[i]ts decision to limit access to the Post‘s Biden laptop article–which was based on interactions Mac Isaac had with ‘Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani’s attorney at the time Robert Costello.’

Mac Isaac’s attorney argued a simple claim of defamation on “the basic defamation tort”  must meet these requirements:

‘[They contain] (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime, or (2) has contracted an infectious disease, or (3) they carry statements tending to subject a person to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace, or (4) to injure a person in his trade or profession.]

Isaac claimed that using “hacked materials” prohibition as it applied to the Post’s article:

‘[C]reated the belief among members of the community that [Isaac]: (1) committed a crime— hacking; (2) was subject to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace—threats of harm and negative business reviews; and (3) was injured to his trade or business as a result—closed his business.’

The court found for Twitter, because none of the company’s explanations identified Isaac. In addition, Twitter received attorneys’ fees after they named Isaac’s lawsuit was in actuality:

‘[A]n anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP), a legal action intended to chill free speech.’

The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again. Isaac also had to pay Twitter’s attorney’s fees.

 Isaac sued Twitter earlier for the same basic reasons. It was also dismissed, because

‘]H]e had failed to sufficiently plead in line with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The second lawsuit sufficiently amended those issues but was lost on the merits.’

Featured image is a screenshot via Twitter.

Three White Lions podcast, Gloria Christie reads her week’s most important news/ commentary stories in the liberal online newspaper The Bipartisan Report. Gloria Christie Report her newsletter for people on the go. Written in her own unique style with a twist of humor in a briefer version of Bipartisan Report. Christie’s Mueller Report Adventures In Bite-Sizes a real-life compelling spy mystery. Find her here on Facebook.