[heydemo]

This actually makes sense. A leaker is someone you've specifically disclosed info to, not just a random adversary. If you can't keep your own team from leaking, greater chance the info you're hiding is in the public interest.

A hacker doesn't even know what the information is before the attack and is likely an adversary who will use any information to damage, regardless of public interest.

[refurb]

I’m pretty sure the emails about Hunter’s interactions with the Ukraine government are relevant to the “public interest”? Maybe they show corruption, maybe they don't. But if the article is censored, I guess the public won't get the chance to make a decision for themselves?

And as as the Twitter files show and the Democratic rep (Ro Khanna) highlighted, they were banning a “news article” about hacked materials, no hacked materials themselves. Are we prepared to even ban the media from talking about hacked materials?