Ressurecting this old thread to ask the timeless question: "...what?"
Presidential Tweet Thread
- Thread starter Ooh-Rah
- Start date
- Status
Brill
SOF Support
This is one of my favorites.
Not exactly a presidential tweet, but this is actually good news. $10b will definitely help. I hadn’t been keeping up with the administration’s plan to combat opioids, and the last thing I’d heard was that the administration appointed Kellyanne Conway to head up the task force, which you have to admit is pretty laughable.
Come on, bro. That's the best part about today's politics- you don't have to admit ANYTHING.
If admitting to things means also standing for them, then I’ll quote everyone’s favorite president and say “I don’t stand for anything.”
Devildoc
Verified Military
Roosevelt??
Nah, he’s better known for famous line, “Sorry guys, I don’t think I’ll be running this year!”
Too soon?
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,443
Sooo... something, something, someone playing kingmaker?
Interesting angle. If the president blocks you on Twitter, is he violating your First Amendment Rights?
When Trump Blocks You on Twitter, He’s Violating the First Amendment
When Trump Blocks You on Twitter, He’s Violating the First Amendment
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,795
The undertone of that article is a symptom of what has gone wrong in America... Its like a child that just wants to complain about having too many toys to play with or too many channels to watch on TV.
So, I invite everyone to travel with me - on a journey into the center of the American liberal mind.............
Child: This cable TV show is stupid
Parent: then change the channel
Child: but I like watching this channel
Parent: then watch another show for now - there are countless other shows you could watch
Child: yes - but this TV show is still stupid and I hate it and I wish it would go away
Parent: (cancels cable service)
Child: My liberties are being violated - Dad has to turn in his stamp collection - nobody needs that many stamps
So as a bonus thought - what the liberal minds in that story are REALLY telling Americans is hidden right up front:
This lawsuit could finally give us a way to police the president’s attacks on the media.
Literally - pissing out a story about free speech violations with a title that says, "Lets find a loophole that will allow us to limit what the president of the united states is permitted to say"
So,
in the words of Maya Angelou, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
So, I invite everyone to travel with me - on a journey into the center of the American liberal mind.............
Child: This cable TV show is stupid
Parent: then change the channel
Child: but I like watching this channel
Parent: then watch another show for now - there are countless other shows you could watch
Child: yes - but this TV show is still stupid and I hate it and I wish it would go away
Parent: (cancels cable service)
Child: My liberties are being violated - Dad has to turn in his stamp collection - nobody needs that many stamps
So as a bonus thought - what the liberal minds in that story are REALLY telling Americans is hidden right up front:
This lawsuit could finally give us a way to police the president’s attacks on the media.
Literally - pissing out a story about free speech violations with a title that says, "Lets find a loophole that will allow us to limit what the president of the united states is permitted to say"
So,
in the words of Maya Angelou, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
Last edited:
I honestly don’t think it’ll change much. Israel has de facto owned that space for over 30 years. I think this is really just to help Netanyahu’s re-election chances
757
Member
From an international law perspective, this could result in a huge step toward international recognition of Israel's sovereignty over the Golan. See the legal principle of effectivity. Basically, "an illegal act may eventually acquire legal status if, as a matter of empirical fact, it is recognized on the international plane." Should be interesting to watch this play out.
I see we have a clear case of left derangement syndrome!!!!
I fixed your example to accurately reflect the child in this scenario.No president has used twitter like this- as his official means of communication. You might not like it, but it's new world presidential. He's not immune to the constitution and he's censoring dissenting viewpoints (by blocking people that are mean to him on twitter) as the president, on a channel he uses for his government position, to millions of people. This is denying citizens the ability to interact with the president on an official channel because he doesn't like what they have to say. And journalists. And organizations. Since this has never happened before, lawsuits must be filed (like in all other cases where previously unforeseen instances were found to be in violation of the constitution), and lawsuits turn in to new legislation. Supreme Court decisions start with lawsuits.
The constitution already limits what the president can say and what actions he can take in regards to limiting speech, the premise of the article was interesting enough.
And in the words of George Bernard Shaw-
“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”
Brill
SOF Support
Interesting article. I liked the citations and noted case law.
Seriously though, are Americans allowed to protest anywhere and anytime or there limits to time & place? Similarly, are blocked tweeters allowed to email, mail, or otherwise convey their message to the Executive?
@Box appears to be correct...as usual.
Kraut783
SOF Support
I see we have a clear case of left derangement syndrome!!!!
No president has used twitter like this- as his official means of communication. You might not like it, but it's new world presidential. He's not immune to the constitution and he's censoring dissenting viewpoints (by blocking people that are mean to him on twitter) as the president, on a channel he uses for his government position, to millions of people. This is denying citizens the ability to interact with the president on an official channel because he doesn't like what they have to say. And journalists. And organizations. Since this has never happened before, lawsuits must be filed (like in all other cases where previously unforeseen instances were found to be in violation of the constitution), and lawsuits turn in to new legislation. Supreme Court decisions start with lawsuits.
The constitution already limits what the president can say and what actions he can take in regards to limiting speech, the premise of the article was interesting enough.
And in the words of George Bernard Shaw-
“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”
But, was the twitter account made prior to him becoming president? is it official? Just looking at any counter arguments.
So this has no precedence, right? So that’s a good question. It was definitely made prior to the election, but that doesn’t have any real bearing; he uses it in an official capacity now. Cause we don’t care what happened before Jan 20, 2016, remember?
We can’t even define what Twitter is, at the moment. Is it a platform? A utility? A private organization? How should it be regulated if at all?
And now the leader of the free world gets on that unknown thing and bitches about TV shows; but sometimes he announces new policy. His administration tells us to ‘take his tweets seriously, but not literally.’ He retweets questionable material, and memes, and spreads conspiracy theories and his own narrative; but he also uses it in an official capacity.
So who knows? Is his behavior against the 1st? There’s no court proceedings or rulings because it’s never existed before, and other presidents don’t tweet like this one does. We won’t know until a suit is brought and courts rule.
Supreme Court rulings start as lawsuits that ask a question- ‘is this legal’. Is segregation legal? Is abortion legal? Is refusing to make this cake legal?
So, that’s the question, I guess. Is the president violating the first amendment with his actions on Twitter?
I'd argue no, did the persons suing lose their platform to spread their voice or their idea? No, they just got blocked by the Carnival Peanut. The article goes into how the first amendment describes the affect of a town hall, but if we're to take that definition, Twitter is not that. Twitter isn't a local city council building where people come down every Thursday evening to voice their concerns. The only people truly "silenced" on Twitter are the ones removed by its staff.
I'd be very concerned if the SCOTUS or whoever ruled it in favor of the plaintiffs.
ETA: On a platform where you can easily create multiple accounts, how is your 1st ammendment right even violated if you can never truly be silenced or restrained as long as you follow the websites rules?
- Status
