• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snowflake needs safe space. Will take bribes.

Guyzilla said:
It is no secret that the skin on Trump is gossamer thin. And he can get his panties bunched just by reading the constitution. Well, Trump thought he OWNED twitter. What with calling all he ****s gospel due to his position. He thought he was king. And that he could just UNBEFRIEND, or block, or unfriend all those that saw he was EVIL. He will not stop, till he can delete all detractors.
------------------------------------
White House asks Supreme Court to let Trump block critics on Twitter

he White House on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that held that President Donald Trump's practice of blocking critics on Twitter ran afoul of the Constitution's First Amendment, renewing a debate about the nature of the president's use of social media.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that the president used his account as "an official channel of communication." On that basis, the unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Trump has effectively created a public forum, and was forbidden from blocking users based on their political views.

The full appeals court declined to revisit that decision in March.

But in a petition submitted to the justices, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the court that the appeals panel inappropriately failed to distinguish the president's official communications on Twitter from the personal nature of his decision to block users he disagreed with.

Read more: White House asks Supreme Court to let Trump block critics on Twitter

-----------------------------------------

Again, I ask. If Trump issues a death threat by twitter, is it REALLY a death threat? Or just pattycake?
Click to expand...

I thought it was already ruled that Trump Tweets are official White House communications.

I don't know how anyone expects SCOTUS to differ, when it is clear that Twitter is the main medium that POTUS uses to communicate, this one anyway.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
In Trump’s defense, it’s unfair to expect Trump to learn how to be a president when he hasn’t even learned how to be a decent human being or a man.
Click to expand...

Let us pray....

...Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortionist catch all that he has; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy to him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth...."

Psalms 109:8-15​
 
Mycroft said:
Trump didn't say anything in disagreement with my comment. You do know he was talking about HIS use of his Twitter account...right?
Click to expand...

exactly and he claimed his use of the twitter account was (modern day) presidential
 
Mycroft said:
So what?
Click to expand...

if its being used as a government communications vehicle, shutting down feedback is likely a first amendment violation
 
Mycroft said:
For sure. But is that any reason to take away from Trump the same right everyone else has?
Click to expand...
A better question is does twitter have the same rule for other public figures? If no, Trump has a legitimate gripe. If yes, Trump will just have to suck it up.
 
tacomancer said:
if its being used as a government communications vehicle, shutting down feedback is likely a first amendment violation
Click to expand...

You should really read the 1st Amendment.
 
Mycroft said:
You should really read the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

I bolded the important bit for you.

you're welcome
 
tacomancer said:
I bolded the important bit for you.

you're welcome
Click to expand...

The most important words in the 1st Amendment are the first five words.

"Congress shall make no law"

Let me know when this thread topic involves Congress.
 
Mycroft said:
How about if someone on Twitter issues a death threat against Trump? Shouldn't he be allowed to block them?
Click to expand...

I believe anybody that issues a death threat on twitter gets their account deleted. And, of course, death threat against the president get visits by secret service.
 
RAMOSS said:
I believe anybody that issues a death threat on twitter gets their account deleted. And, of course, death threat against the president get visits by secret service.
Click to expand...

You are only about the 10th person to tell me that. Thank you.

But...so what? Is that a reason to forbid Trump from blocking people?
 
Mycroft said:
You are only about the 10th person to tell me that. Thank you.

But...so what? Is that a reason to forbid Trump from blocking people?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, there is. It has been pointed out to you, by a legal ruling. I am surprised you still are stomping your feet and pouting about it.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, yes, there is. It has been pointed out to you, by a legal ruling. I am surprised you still are stomping your feet and pouting about it.
Click to expand...

A legal ruling that is being appealed to the Supremes.

Let me know what they decide.
 
Mycroft said:
The most important words in the 1st Amendment are the first five words.

"Congress shall make no law"

Let me know when this thread topic involves Congress.
Click to expand...

:lol:

So in your legal wisdom, government can do what it wants with the first amendment as long as congress is not involved as some sort of end run around the constitution?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Exactly, which is why you're just trying to waste everyone's time with a nonsensical scenario. Do you ever stop gaslighting and just be honest?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who brought up death threats. Did you even read the OP?
 
tacomancer said:
:lol:

So in your legal wisdom, government can do what it wants with the first amendment as long as congress is not involved as some sort of end run around the constitution?
Click to expand...

Government can only do what laws passed by Congress allows them to do.
 
Mycroft said:
Government can only do what laws passed by Congress allows them to do.
Click to expand...

Ok, well congress, as far as I know passed no law regarding this, so it would be up to twitter and their internal policies then.
 
tacomancer said:
Ok, well congress, as far as I know passed no law regarding this, so it would be up to twitter and their internal policies then.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Since this has been taken to the courts, it's up to them.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, no. Since this has been taken to the courts, it's up to them.
Click to expand...

Then you are contradicting yourself since you mentioned that this has to start with congress according to your very interesting interpretation of the first amendment.
 
tacomancer said:
Then you are contradicting yourself since you mentioned that this has to start with congress according to your very interesting interpretation of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Nope.

We aren't talking about "government" here. We are talking about a citizen (who happens to be the President) engaging with a private enterprise and wanting the same behavior from that enterprise as anyone else who engages with them. That enterprise wants to apply different rules to this citizen...so the citizen is taking them to court.

Congress is irrelevant. (Unless, of course, they try to pass a law that targets that citizen (who happens to be the President). That's why the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to this issue at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom