The decision by Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey to censor The New York Post’s stories on Hunter Biden’s alleged emails that expose a possible meeting between his father, then -Vice President Joe Biden, and Ukrainian officials connected with the Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings, was extraordinary.

Dorsey’s social media platform, which is a primary tool to share information on the Internet, made the decision to censor the story revealing its support for Biden in the 2020 election.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial page pointed out the inconsistencies with Dorsey’s explanation as to why his platform not only blocked the story but stopped users from sharing the story.

I made the decision on Thursday last week to stop using Twitter for a week. It wasn’t that difficult but many people I know called to say they wish they could do it but just couldn’t seem to manage. They were afraid of doing so because of the election, because they wouldn’t get their stories out, because frankly, we’ve all become to reliant on these platforms. I’ll discuss that in a future column.

But I loved the way the Wall Street Journal editorial called out Twitter. Read some of what the paper had to say below. It’s right on target.

“Twitter says it acted because the Post story violated its “hacked materials” policy. It’s true that the provenance of the story is open for debate and scrutiny—the Post says a laptop with the emails was delivered to a Delaware repair shop, and that the owner gave them to Donald Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Notably, the Biden campaign has not explicitly denied the authenticity of the emails….The problem is that if Twitter has a policy against “content obtained without authorization,” as the company added, it has a policy against journalism—especially journalism in the Trump era. In 2017 and 2018 the Justice Department fielded 208 criminal referrals for leaks of classified information, more than three times as many as in the prior two years. Stories based on Administration leaks, including about national security matters, have circulated widely on Twitter.

Such stories ought to be read with a skeptical eye. But Twitter would never think of canceling the account of a news outlet reporting on the 2017 leaked emails from the Environmental Protection Agency, for example. The site allowed feverish falsehoods about Brett Kavanaugh to circulate as Democrats sought to sink his Supreme Court nomination.”

You can follow Sara A Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC