Trump blocking people on twitter claimed by some to be against US Constitution

a reply to: Grimpachi

I see a tiny bit of gray but again I can't see a Judge being willing to step into a potential pile of poop, not when there's such an easy work around.

How?

It would only be a breach if he banned people from twitter.

All this shows is Trumps a thin skinned pussy. But hes broken no laws.

It's a classic set-up.

They Tweeted derogatory material on purpose.

Red Herring.

What was the point of this thread?

Should I create a thread anytime someone from either party makes a stupid comment?

Or was this just an opportunity for your buddies to circle round and make generic sweeping comments?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ManFromEurope

They may have a case when it comes to the official presidential account.

We will jus have to see what the court says. One of those things a judge will have to decide.

I think they do indeed have a case, but I also agree that we'll just have to wait for some of them judges to decide before it becomes official.

And I don't think it would be limited to Presidential accounts either. IMO, it would probably apply to any elected officials who chose to utilize public social media to communicate with their constituents.

For instance;
Would it be legal for congressional representatives to hold their public town hall meeting online and block all oppositional viewpoints?

Is it a "town hall" when only friends are allowed in? In such a scenario, are all the constituents being offered equal access to redress their grievances?

Furthermore, according to the Reuters article, existing case law already tends to support the Knight Institute's position as well.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm betting the Knight Institute is probably correct.

From Twitter's Terms of Service.

If you are a federal, state, or local government entity in the United States using the Services in your official capacity and legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you. For such U.S. federal government entities, these Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the United States of America....
twitter.com...

The way I see it, Donald Trump is President of the United States, not sometimes, all the time. Everything he says and does, he does as President of the United States. Even when he's only expressing opinion, it's the opinion of the President of the United States.

When Donald Trump tweets from his non POTUS account, he doesn't stop being president. When Donald Trump censors posts and posters, he does it as President of the United States. As President of the United States, Donald Trump doesn't have the right to censor his tweet responses.

a reply to: allsee4eye

They also think a travel ban is unconstitutional. This is no stretch.

Free speech allows constructive criticism. As long as you backup your opinion and list your points. Fine. Showing stupid pictures like Putin and Trump cartoons is not freedom of speech. It's political attack and personal attack and it's not covered under free speech. There's a reason the first amendment was made and attacks is not the reason.

Open the comments to anyone and everyone. Like Waters, Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton, et al, the Liberals just keep showing their ignorance and desperation, every time they open their mouths.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Showing stupid pictures like Putin and Trump cartoons is not freedom of speech.

Yes, it is.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Showing stupid pictures like Putin and Trump cartoons is not freedom of speech.

Actually it is. Newspapers have been doing it for a long, long time.

a reply to: DAVID64

If it's in the humor section it's fine. It's not it can be sued in court. Personal attacks are not covered under free speech. Free speech allows criticism with clear point, not personal attacks.

a reply to: windword

Oh snap.

a reply to: allsee4eye


]

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: allsee4eye

Showing stupid pictures like Putin and Trump cartoons is not freedom of speech.

Actually it is. Newspapers have been doing it for a long, long time.

I read yesterday that Muslims were ready to riot in some US town, over a billboard on the side of the road. "Free Speech" can cause problems with certain groups.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Pretty sure this was not in the same section as Garfield. And you know damn well some of the the rabid Liberals would have thrown a suit at them for this one if they could.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Is this what the Twits worry about? Are they still worried about the number of scoops of ice cream or other trivia?

The world has actual important stuff going on. Focus, kiddies, focus.

Twitter is not the only form of communication. If they get blocked on twitter, they can still demonstrate in the streets and say the exact same things and show the exact same pictures. So Trump blocking them on twitter is not violating 1st amendment of free speech.

Jesus Christ....More crying by the deranged Leftist dolts.
Coats and Rogers just testified that Trump didn't illegally pressure them about anything......Comey will do the same tomorrow.
The delusional Leftists heads will explode tomorrow.....then you will have something to cry about.

I have yet to look at twitter for him .
He could be best ever and i just not a fan of walk of fame twitter is just another five mints of fame site like youtube .
Honstly being were he is I believe it is foolish using twitter .
WAY WAY to open to public all it will take is one slip and we have a international crises on our hands .
they use script writers for one reason to try and minims possible faux pas .
Doesnt help much lol .