Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It will never pass, cause Democrats/Leftists hate the Free speech, but boy would this pucker some Lefty Anal's.

GgSFUqAhdfY

So very true lol.

This sounds like a great idea but I can't support it.

It goes against the free-market capitalism idea. This forces companies to remain politically neutral but they are businesses and should not have to be politically neutral if they don't want to be.

He touches on a topic known as "Market Entry Cost" for the little guys. But as we know, a tech company can take off from nothing to a giant in a few short years. We don't need the government interfering with letting the little guys grow by forcing expensive regulation on large tech companies.


This sounds no different than the overly bloated GDPR law in the EU. We need less of these regulations, not more.

Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want.

So just to be clear, the left is now a-okay with a few mega corporations controlling what is rapidly becoming the new public square?

Awesome, supporting the mega-corps to own da cons

Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear, the left is now a-okay with a few mega corporations controlling what is rapidly becoming the new public square?

Awesome, supporting the mega-corps to own da cons


How is that possible, won't the free market sort it out? With innovators and such making new platforms. FFS, you just recently made a thread about Jordan Peterson launching a new platform to combat censorship. Lolz.

Originally posted by Robtard
How is that possible, won't the free market sort it out? With innovators and such making new platforms. FFS, you just recently made a thread about Jordan Peterson launching a new platform to combat censorship. Lolz.

I did make a thread about that, but I never said I felt it would succeed lol.

Yes or no are you okay with mega corporations controlling the new public square? Or do you disagree with the fact it is becoming the new public square?

Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear, the left is now a-okay with a few mega corporations controlling what is rapidly becoming the new public square?

Awesome, supporting the mega-corps to own da cons

That's the thing though, it's not actually a "public space". It's a "space" owned by these corporations and they have a right to decide what happens within there.

Originally posted by ares834
That's the thing though, it's not actually a "public space". It's a "space" owned by these corporations and they have a right to decide what happens within there.

So you disagree it's not the new public square. Noted.

Why is Trump not allowed to block folk on twitter?

I agree that that is a ridiculous ruling; Trump should be allowed to.

Because he's the President and all citizens have equal access to what he says. It goes with the job.

Where is the outrage from the left over it? They are supposed to suddenly be pro mega-corporations.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because he's the President and all citizens have equal access to what he says. It goes with the job.

So it's a public square. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because he's the President and all citizens have equal access to what he says. It goes with the job.

Absolutely asinine logic. Of course not all citizens will have equal access to what he says, nor should the gov't play any role in trying to make it so.

Yup but hey...Truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump!

Another eWin, how shocking.

Trump is the President of all Americans, not just you Trumper people, even though you like to pretend to feel special.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another eWin, how shocking.

Trump is the President of all Americans, not just you Trumper people, even though you like to pretend to feel special.

So then why is it legal for twitter to ban anyone? It denies them access to Trump.

Originally posted by ares834
Absolutely asinine logic. Of course not all citizens will have equal access to what he says, nor should the gov't play any role in trying to make it so.

The law disagrees. That's faulty logic, while someone without internet access may not have equal access to a President's words, they should be allowed the opportunity without being blocked.

Then it should be illegal for twitter to ban anyone.

But...muh private company tho.

See the problem? See why this is unique and needs regulation? Or no?

Originally posted by Surtur
So then why is it legal for twitter to ban anyone? It denies them access to Trump.

^ Red Herring.

The fish aside, I'm not on Twitter, never had an account, but I can see Trump's tweets whenever I want. America is great!

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Red Herring.

The fish aside, I'm not on Twitter, never had an account, but I can see Trump's tweets whenever I want. America is great!

But if people are owed access to Trump on twitter why is it okay for twitter to ban anyone? You haven't explained this.

Should it be illegal for twitter to ban anyone?

And you realize people he blocked could just log out and see his tweets, correct?

So again: should it be illegal for twitter to ban anyone?

If you can't understand that sometimes the President operates under different rules than a private citizen because that comes with the job, I don't know what to tell you.

Repeat, he's the President of every US citizen.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you can't understand that sometimes the President operates under different rules than a private citizen because that comes with the job, I don't know what to tell you.

So essentially you're okay with a corporation deciding who gets access to the president.

El oh El...oh leftists.

^ Another strawman victory.

So you're not okay with twitter being able to decide who gets access to Trump, and in fact agree it is wrong?

Say what you mean kid, don't be shy.

Self-soothe yourself over the fact that when the Dem wins in 2020, like Biden, Warren or Buttigeig, they won't be able to block all the Rightist trolls.

Though in reality, they all have thick skins and wouldn't rage over some mean comments online, because that comes with the job of Potus :0

Originally posted by Surtur
So you're not okay with twitter being able to decide who gets access to Trump, and in fact agree it is wrong?

Say what you mean kid, don't be shy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Self-soothe yourself over the fact that when the Dem wins in 2020, like Biden, Warren or Buttigeig, they won't be able to block all the Rightist trolls.

Though in reality, they all have thick skins and wouldn't rage over some mean comments online, because that comes with the job of Potus :0 Bingo!

If Warren had a thick skin she'd have never done her little DNA test debacle you clowns

Originally posted by Robtard
The law disagrees. That's faulty logic, while someone without internet access may not have equal access to a President's words, they should be allowed the opportunity without being blocked.


The law doesn't disagree. The ruling was wrong. Twitter isn't a public forum.

Originally posted by Robtard
The law disagrees.

This is incorrect. The law does not disagree.

A group of old an out of touch justices disagreed and they are showing their disconnect from modern technology by thinking people deserve harass the president on his personal twitter account that he used for years before he was president.


They might have a point if he used an official PotUS Twitter account after taking office.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Red Herring.

The fish aside, I'm not on Twitter, never had an account, but I can see Trump's tweets whenever I want. America is great!

Which means you have fundamentally proven the Justices wrong on their ruling.



You understand that, right? You don't even have a Twitter account to get blocked by Trump. Yet, you can see his tweets just fine.

Yup and if people wanna stand behind the ruling, technically it should be illegal for twitter to ban ANYONE lol.

The left would neeeeeeever accept that, but they sure as hell stayed silent over Trump being forced to unban people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is incorrect. The law does not disagree.

A group of old an out of touch justices disagreed and they are showing their disconnect from modern technology by thinking people deserve harass the president on his personal twitter account that he used for years before he was president.


They might have a point if he used an official PotUS Twitter account after taking office.

Disagreed, when Trump became POTUS his personal Twitter became of the state since he uses it as a Presidential platform to reach the people.

Trump's not just tweeting about what he had for lunch or his favorite movies, he's using it for official business.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which means you have fundamentally proven the Justices wrong on their ruling.



You understand that, right? You don't even have a Twitter account to get blocked by Trump. Yet, you can see his tweets just fine.

Disagreed. See above.

Rob should it be illegal for twitter to ban people?

No, they're a private company.

(No, you don't have your little "gotcha!" here)

Originally posted by Robtard
No, they're a private company.

(No, you don't have you little "gotcha!" here)

So then you agree that people are indeed not owed access to his twitter account?

You cannot have it both ways lol.

The office of the POTUS is not a private company, it's the government and serves all citizens, not just Trump supporters, you pretending the rules are the same between the two will not change the fact that they are not.

You really need to decide if a private business has the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason or not, you can't have it both ways (like your sexuality).

Could Twitter legally ban Trump?

Originally posted by Robtard
The office of the POTUS is not a private company, it's the government and serves all citizens, not just Trump supporters, you pretending the rules are the same between the two will not change the fact that they are not.

You really need to decide if a private business has the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason or not, you can't have it both ways (like your sexuality).

The office didn't ban anyone, Trump banned people on his personal account(and spare me your excuses for why that doesn't matter, it does).

Yet, citizens can see his tweets regardless of whether or not he blocks them. So what is the issue here? If they are owed the ability to interact with him on twitter *why* is it okay to ban anyone?

Originally posted by Surtur
The office didn't ban anyone, Trump banned people on his personal account(and spare me your excuses for why that doesn't matter, it does).

Yet, citizens can see his tweets regardless of whether or not he blocks them. So what is the issue here? If they are owed the ability to interact with him on twitter *why* is it okay to ban anyone?

HYG, already covered, ignoring reality won't actually change it:

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed, when Trump became POTUS his personal Twitter became of the state since he uses it as a Presidential platform to reach the people.

Trump's not just tweeting about what he had for lunch or his favorite movies, he's using it for official business.

If they want to tweet at him, They could just create a new account.

I'm not gonna argue with your opinion on his personal account because it is pointless.

If he uses it for official business a person is still capable of viewing those tweets, even if they aren't a registered twitter user. So why is it wrong to block them?

The only reason is because you feel they deserve to *engage* with him on twitter. Which a person can't do if twitter bans them.

It's not an opinion that Trump's personal Twitter stopped being personal when he became POTUS and used it for official POTUS stuff, that's a fact. Don't like this fact, don't become POTUS.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not an opinion that Trump's personal Twitter stopped being personal when he became POTUS and used it for official POTUS stuff, that's a fact. Don't like this fact, don't become POTUS.

It's an opinion and it's not going to be debated, your opinion has been noted.

Point is, that's actually irrelevant if you feel people are owed not only the ability to read his tweets, but the ability to engage with him on twitter.

HYG:
Originally posted by Robtard
Self-soothe yourself over the fact that when the Dem wins in 2020, like Biden, Warren or Buttigeig, they won't be able to block all the Rightist trolls.

Though in reality, they all have thick skins and wouldn't rage over some mean comments online, because that comes with the job of Potus :0

It doesn't soothe me because I feel they should be able to block whoever they want.

Though going by the rules being imposed on Trump...Warren nor Buttigieg should be allowed to block anyone. Whether or not they win is irrelevant, she's a senator and he's a mayor.

You keep refusing to answer if you feel people are owed merely a right to view his tweets or the right to actually engage with him.

Jesus Christ. It is the law that all presidential and vice presidential communications must be preserved, including Tweets. It is why presidents cannot delete Tweets, and why they cannot block them from public view. Get it together.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Jesus Christ. It is the law that all presidential and vice presidential communications must be preserved, including Tweets. It is why presidents cannot delete Tweets, and why they cannot block them from public view. Get it together.

You can view his tweets without even getting a twitter account. The only way to block them from public view is if he made his entire account private.

Originally posted by Surtur
You can view his tweets without even getting a twitter account. The only way to block them from public view is if he made his entire account private.

It does not matter. Courts have found that public records cannot be concealed from view. Which means if the record is a Tweet, the account holder cannot block someone from viewing it. It may not even be permissible for the platform to remove it. The issue is settled, so move on.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It does not matter. Courts have found that public records cannot be concealed from view. Which means if the record is a Tweet, the account holder cannot block someone from viewing it. It may not even be permissible for the platform to remove it. The issue is settled, so move on.

So the president can't block people from having access to him, but a private company can block people from having access to the president? Gotcha.

EDIT: Would it be legal for Twitter to ban Trump?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It does not matter. Courts have found that public records cannot be concealed from view. Which means if the record is a Tweet, the account holder cannot block someone from viewing it. It may not even be permissible for the platform to remove it. The issue is settled, so move on.
Well I'm sure it's settled for those who are happy with the outcome, but that doesn't mean the opposition has to just accept it without complaint.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed, when Trump became POTUS his personal Twitter became of the state

It didn't. Technically, literally, and abstractly, nothing changed.

The only thing that DID change is old farts who don't know how the darn fan-dangled internetz work ruled that his private twitter account cannot ban people from harassing him on Twitter because they don't understand, as you pointed out, that people can still see his tweets just fine and accounts can be created in seconds.

If the Justices understood that, they would have ruled differently. They didn't. They are too ignorant.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump's not just tweeting about what he had for lunch or his favorite movies, he's using it for official business.

Actually, he's not. He still isn't using it for "official business."



Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed. See above.

You can't disagree with your own point.

You just pointed out the fundamental problem with the Justices' ruling. You don't even have an account and you can see the president's "clearly not official business and never will be" tweets.


teehee

Originally posted by darthgoober
Well I'm sure it's settled for those who are happy with the outcome, but that doesn't mean the opposition has to just accept it without complaint.

The transgender military ban has been settled. Time for folk to move on I guess.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not gonna argue with your opinion on his personal account because it is pointless.

If he uses it for official business a person is still capable of viewing those tweets, even if they aren't a registered twitter user. So why is it wrong to block them?

The only reason is because you feel they deserve to *engage* with him on twitter. Which a person can't do if twitter bans them.

No, the real reason for Robtard is it is a ruling that goes against what Trump wanted and anything or any situation that pisses of Trump, Trumptards, or conservatards is amusing to him.

It has nothing to do with he incorrect Supreme Court interpretations or his contradiction of how he thinks private social media companies should operate.

It's all about the lulz for him and owning Trump.

Originally posted by Surtur
So the president can't block people from having access to him, but a private company can block people from having access to the president? Gotcha.

EDIT: Would it be legal for Twitter to ban Trump?


*crickets from leftist anti-Trumpers*


No doubt they'd love for Trump to get banned even though it would expose the weakness in their argument. Right now they're all probably brainstorming trying to figure out how to best answer your question without appearing to be biased.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the real reason for Robtard is it is a ruling that goes against what Trump wanted and anything or any situation that pisses of Trump, Trumptards, or conservatards is amusing to him.

It has nothing to do with he incorrect Supreme Court interpretations or his contradiction of how he thinks private social media companies should operate.

It's all about the lulz for him and owning Trump.

Yeah, it's the same reason Rob and those like him are suddenly pro mega-corporations.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Jesus Christ. It is the law that all presidential and vice presidential communications must be preserved, including Tweets. It is why presidents cannot delete Tweets, and why they cannot block them from public view. Get it together.

Oh, another fact as to why. Forgot about the historic preservation aspect at play as well.

His tweets are preserved.

I literally just went and viewed them, I don't even have a twitter account.

^Still crickets from robbie and other leftists regarding Surtur's question I see.


Shocker.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Well I'm sure it's settled for those who are happy with the outcome, but that doesn't mean the opposition has to just accept it without complaint.

This is the correct statement. It is not settled. And other "experts" strongly disagree with the decision on this case.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh, another fact as to why. Forgot about the historic preservation aspect at play as well.

At no point were any of those items discussed in the rulings. That's just some weird shit he made up.

I found 0 evidence for what he was talking about. lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the real reason for Robtard is it is a ruling that goes against what Trump wanted and anything or any situation that pisses of Trump, Trumptards, or conservatards is amusing to him.

It has nothing to do with he incorrect Supreme Court interpretations or his contradiction of how he thinks private social media companies should operate.

It's all about the lulz for him and owning Trump.

This is not correct, as noted, Trump will probably be president for only two more years and I have no problem with this same rule applying to whomever comes after. Becoming President comes with some personal sacrifices, if a person can't handle that, they shouldn't run for the office.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^Still crickets from robbie and other leftists regarding Surtur's question I see.


Shocker.

If they bother to address it...it will just be some sort of spin.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is not correct, as noted, Trump will probably be president for only two more years and I have no problem with this same rule applying to whomever comes after. Becoming President comes with some personal sacrifices, if a person can't handle that, they shouldn't run for the office.

Why should this just be a rule for the president?

Should your state senator be allowed to block you on twitter, Roberto?

Oh and, can twitter legally ban Trump?

Originally posted by dadudemon
At no point were any of those items discussed in the rulings. That's just some weird shit he made up.

I found 0 evidence for what he was talking about. lol


Probably this: Presidential Records Act

the PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records. -snip

edit: Link should work now

Originally posted by Surtur
Why should this just be a rule for the president?

Should your state senator be allowed to block you on twitter, Roberto?


Great question. I'd say a person's local government officials have far more influence on a person's life than the president would..

Surely robbie and other leftists will be consistent and say ''no, they shouldn't be allowed to either.'' Let's wait & see lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why should this just be a rule for the president?

Should your state senator be allowed to block you on twitter, Roberto?

Oh and, can twitter legally ban Trump?

Me personally, I think this rule should also apply to congress as well.

See above.

Already answered and explained on previous page, you ignored the facts.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is not correct, as noted,

Your statement about it being incorrect is incorrect, as I noted. lol

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump will probably be president for only two more years and I have no problem with this same rule applying to whomever comes after. Becoming President comes with some personal sacrifices, if a person can't handle that, they shouldn't run for the office.

Yeah, if the next president creates a Twitter account that is named "PresidentTrumpOfficial", yeah, that could be seen as the official presidential twitter account. But Trump is using his private Twitter handle that he had for years before becoming President. We all know this. NO reason to rehash the facts.

Guess what? Still no official business being conducted on it.




Unless you view the Office of the President of the United States as a business?

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably this: Presidential Records Act

the PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records. -snip

edit: Link should work now

I keep reading and reading and I just don't find anything in the rulings about the PRA applying to blocking people on Twitter which is what Adam_Poe posted...



It's as if...as if what I said was correct this whole time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your statement about it being incorrect is incorrect, as I noted. lol



Yeah, if the next president creates a Twitter account that is named "PresidentTrumpOfficial", yeah, that could be seen as the official presidential twitter account. But Trump is using his private Twitter handle that he had for years before becoming President. We all know this. NO reason to rehash the facts.

Guess what? Still no official business being conducted on it.




Unless you view the Office of the President of the United States as a business?

Well no.

Well you're wrong there: First Trump administration tweets come from @realDonaldTrump

Trump has used both the POTUS Twitter and his personal Twitter to conduct POTUS business.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well no.

Well you're wrong there: First Trump administration tweets come from @realDonaldTrump

Trump has used both the POTUS Twitter and his personal Twitter to conduct POTUS business.

So you admit that Trump has a presidential Twitter and these rulings should only apply to the official presidential Twitter, not his private one?

It seems like you're conceding the entire argument just now. Why else would you bring up that he has two twitter accounts?






You could call me out on the fact that I incorrectly stated the Supreme Court Justices ruled on this when they didn't. No one called me out...I got away with it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you admit that Trump has a presidential Twitter and these rulings should only apply to the official presidential Twitter, not his private one?

It seems like you're conceding the entire argument just now. Why else would you bring up that he has two twitter accounts?






You could call me out on the fact that I incorrectly stated the Supreme Court Justices ruled on this when they didn't. No one called me out...I got away with it.

Already covered here:

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed, when Trump became POTUS his personal Twitter became of the state since he uses it as a Presidential platform to reach the people.

Trump's not just tweeting about what he had for lunch or his favorite movies, he's using it for official business.



This supports the above here:

Originally posted by Robtard
Well no.

Well you're wrong there: First Trump administration tweets come from @realDonaldTrump

Trump has used both the POTUS Twitter and his personal Twitter to conduct POTUS business.

Originally posted by Robtard
Already covered here:



This supports the above here:

So you have no good arguments and nothing new to add? Because all your arguments were addressed and destroyed. You need to present something new if you wish to convince me that something something something stupid.


Let's recap:

1. Not his official presidential twitter account.
2. He has a second one branded for the president stuff.
3. PRA was unrelated to the ruling (which is why it doesn't shows up in the ruling documents)
4. You acknowledge all the facts including the contradiction in the ruling and in your position.


You just like it that Trump lost an argument. That's really all this is.

Originally posted by Robtard
Already answered and explained on previous page, you ignored the facts.

Quote me where on the previous page the question is answered.

Oh, do you think twitter itself has 1st amendment rights?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you have no good arguments and nothing new to add? Because all your arguments were addressed and destroyed. You need to present something new if you wish to convince me that something something something stupid.


Let's recap:

1. Not his official presidential twitter account.
2. He has a second one branded for the president stuff.
3. PRA was unrelated to the ruling (which is why it doesn't shows up in the ruling documents)
4. You acknowledge all the facts including the contradiction in the ruling and in your position.


You just like it that Trump lost an argument. That's really all this is.

Incorrect and already covered in the post I just quoted for you again above with the corresponding story/links as support.

-Trump has used both the POTUS Twitter and his personal Twitter to conduct POTUS business.

Originally posted by Surtur
Quote me where on the previous page the question is answered.

Oh, do you think twitter itself has 1st amendment rights?

Already dissected on page 2 and 3, not playing your silly games where you ignore reality and pretend something didn't happen just because the page flipped.

So here you go:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JwNPAckJDiPsI/giphy.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you have no good arguments and nothing new to add? Because all your arguments were addressed and destroyed. You need to present something new if you wish to convince me that something something something stupid.


Let's recap:

1. Not his official presidential twitter account.
2. He has a second one branded for the president stuff.
3. PRA was unrelated to the ruling (which is why it doesn't shows up in the ruling documents)
4. You acknowledge all the facts including the contradiction in the ruling and in your position.


You just like it that Trump lost an argument. That's really all this is.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/6w8jDQ99rAvV6/source.gif

Originally posted by Robtard
Already dissected on page 2 and 3, not playing your silly games where you ignore reality and pretend something didn't happen just because the page flipped.

So here you go:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JwNPAckJDiPsI/giphy.gif

https://i.imgur.com/LezqbU0.jpg

^ Classical cheerleading and a coping meme back-to-back. *yawn*

Originally posted by Robtard
-Trump has used both the POTUS Twitter and his personal Twitter to conduct POTUS business.

That's irrelevant. It really doesn't matter at all and I've covered why. No wonder people argue with you pages and pages and get no where.

Trump should be able to block people from his private twitter account because it doesn't stop them from viewing the tweets at all.

He has an official presidential twitter account so even if you support illegally controlling Trump, you should logically conclude that it applies to his official president twitter stuff and not his private handle regardless of what he does with either.


Also, is Trump conducting business? Is he really?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Classical cheerleading and a coping meme back-to-back. *yawn*

Would you agree that platforms do not have 1st amendment rights?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's irrelevant. It really doesn't matter at all and I've covered why. No wonder people argue with you pages and pages and get no where.

Trump should be able to block people from his private twitter account because it doesn't stop them from viewing the tweets at all.

He has an official presidential twitter account so even if you support illegally controlling Trump, you should logically conclude that it applies to his official president twitter stuff and not his private handle regardless of what he does with either.


Also, is Trump conducting business? Is he really?

No, it's not irrelevant and you initially used this as a point to support your argument until I showed that Trump has indeed used his personal Twitter for POTUS related Tweeting.

Here is your quote:

Originally posted by dadudemon

Guess what? Still no official business being conducted on it.


Here is the quote and link showing he indeed has:

Originally posted by Robtard
Well no.

Well you're wrong there: First Trump administration tweets come from @realDonaldTrump

Trump has used both the POTUS Twitter and his personal Twitter to conduct POTUS business.

Originally posted by Surtur
Would you agree that platforms do not have 1st amendment rights?

I agree that you're a dishonest actor here.

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree that you're a dishonest actor here.

In what way?

I really don't see the argument here. If, as the judge ruled, Twitter constitutes as a "designated public forum" then Trump should not be allowed to block people nor should Twitter be allowed to moderate speech on their platform as they currently do. It's really quite simple. Of course, the reverse is also true.

The president's words do, Twitter is not bound by this clause.

eg If they ban Trump from Twitter, they're not destroying presidential records, Trump simply won't be able to ramble via Twitter anymore; nothing is being destroyed.

Though Twitter would never ban Trump, he makes them a lot of money.

Indeed, because he is the POTUS and that's an aspect of the job, you preemptively dismissing it because it doesn't get with your views won't change that.

Here's the Act:

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably this: Presidential Records Act

the PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records. -snip

edit: Link should work now

Anyone who wishes to be POTUS realizes that they lose certain privacies.

Its called HYPOCRISY! The Left does that All The Time.

This is why I would LOVE Conservative in Congress to treat these WebFascists like the Nazis they are.

Originally posted by Robtard
Indeed, because he is the POTUS and that's an aspect of the job, you preemptively dismissing it because it doesn't get with your views won't change that.

Here's the Act:

Anyone who wishes to be POTUS realizes that they lose certain privacies.

Fair. I did not realize their was an act specifying that. Though I wouldn't consider Tweets "official records". Regardless, as has been pointed out, Trump blocking people does not prevent people from accessing his tweets.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Its called HYPOCRISY! The Left does that All The Time.

This is why I would LOVE Conservative in Congress to treat these WebFascists like the Nazis they are.

Aren't you anti-Net neutrality? Stones and glass houses and all that.

Not so much I am Against "Net Neutrality" as in more like I really, REALLY Do Not Trust the People Pushing the So Called NET NEUTRALITY Internet Laws.

Cause the Net Neut Crowd are the same people that just brought Art 13 to EuroFascsitLand.

Lying Hypocrite Bastards.

Originally posted by ares834
Fair. I did not realize their was an act specifying that. Though I wouldn't consider Tweets "official records". Regardless, as has been pointed out, Trump blocking people does not prevent people from accessing his tweets.



But it can stop a given citizen from having an equal platform to the President.

And so does Twitter by banning people. Heck, even more so as they IP ban.

Which is surprising that Twitter hasn't put an end to it...at least during THIS Administration.

Originally posted by ares834
And so does Twitter by banning people. Heck, even more so as they IP ban.

Already covered that on page 2-3, Twitter as a private company is not bound by these rules that the office of the POTUS is.

Yes and no. While the specific act may not directly pertain to Twitter, reprecussions from the act would. If Trump's twitter is consdiered a "designated public forum (which the ruling states) then Twitter is not allowed the right to discriminate based on viewpoint on said forum. Hypothetically, twitter could ban people from the rest of twitter aside from the POTUS's account. But they aren't. They are banning them from everything including Trump's twitter which is illegal.


Of course, this all relies on Trumps twitter being considered a "public forum" which I find to be a ridiculous concept.

Again, no. Twitter is not bound by the same rules as the office of the POTUS and the Presidential Records Act.

They're a private company and a private company can give and refuse service to anyone for any reason. This was pushed hard and further cemented when the homophobic baker in Colorado won his case.

Again yes. They aren't bound by the Act. They are however bound by the repercussions of Trump's twitter being considered a "public forum".

Not being bound by the Act is just that, it absolves Twitter of anything that pertains to it.

And "it's public" is meaningless now. The bakery was open to the public; it was not a private members only bakery, yet as a private business it was still deemed the bakery could refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It's not meaningless. There have been cases like this before. The bakery was open to the public but was not defined as a public forum. However, privately owned public forums such as theaters have been forced by the court before to show shows that they did not wish too. Such rulings, therefore, would also apply to Twitter when it comes to the POTUS's account.

The reason I ask about twitters free speech rights is because publishers have 1st amendment rights and platforms do not.

Attorneys for twitter argued in court they have 1st amendment rights.

Originally posted by ares834
It's not meaningless. There have been cases like this before. The bakery was open to the public but was not defined as a public forum. However, privately owned public forums such as theaters have been forced by the court before to show shows that they did not wish too. Such rulings, therefore, would also apply to Twitter when it comes to the POTUS's account.

Dude, you said this on page one: "Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want."

Twitter is still a private business and you sign a EULA when you join, agreeing that they can boot you, if they so wish.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, you said this on page one: "Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want."

Twitter is still a private business and you sign a EULA when you join, agreeing that they can boot you, if they so wish.

To be fair, he said that before he was knew about the judges ruling on trumps twitter.

So if it's legal for twitter to ban people then we are saying private companies can block access to public officials.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, you said this on page one: "Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want."

Twitter is still a private business and you sign a EULA when you join, agreeing that they can boot you, if they so wish.

Yes, and I still think that. However, if Trump's Twitter is considered a public forum (which I've stated I think is a ridiculous ruling several times now) then Twitter is not allowed to discrimiate who has access to it.

We're going in circles: Because the office of the POTUS is bound by different rules than Twitter.

If seems like the argument from you people should be "We Need A Social Media Reform Act", where the government comes in and cements code and conduct for social media across the board.

Do you want that?

The POTUS is bound by different rules. However, Twitter is still bound by different laws that prevents them from blocking access to public forums based on viewpoint discrimination.

And no. Obviously, I'd prefer none of this to be regulated at all. The POTUS's twitter should not be defined as public, twitter should be allowed to curate content as they see fit, and Trump should be allowed to ban people as he wishes.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're going in circles: Because the office of the POTUS is bound by different rules than Twitter.

If seems like the argument from you people should be "We Need A Social Media Reform Act", where the government comes in and cements code and conduct for social media across the board.

Do you want that?

I don't want it, but I think we're going to need some sort of internet bill of rights.

The amusing thing is regulation of social media is supported by some on both sides, it is just the reasoning that is different. Republicans want to regulate it so there can be more speech, democrats want to regulate it so there can be less(especially in the wake of the altered Nancy Pelosi video).

Originally posted by ares834
The POTUS is bound by different rules. However, Twitter is still bound by different laws that prevents them from blocking access to public forums based on viewpoint discrimination.

And no. Obviously, I'd prefer none of this to be regulated at all. The POTUS's twitter should not be defined as public, twitter should be allowed to curate content as they see fit, and Trump should be allowed to ban people as he wishes.

Which laws are these? Cos I'm 99.999% sure their EULA is tighter than a frog's ass. Same goes will all the social media giants, these billion dollar companies have the best lawyers money can buy writing their terms and conditions.

When Trump used his private Twitter for Presidential use on day one, that kinda made it not "private", that and the Presidential Records Act.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't want it, but I think we're going to need some sort of internet bill of rights.

The amusing thing is regulation of social media is supported by some on both sides, it is just the reasoning that is different. Republicans want to regulate it so there can be more speech, democrats want to regulate it so there can be less(especially in the wake of the altered Nancy Pelosi video).

And you actually believe this.

Originally posted by Robtard
And you actually believe this.

It's not about what I believe, it's about the democrats own reactions. They want to regulate too, just for different reasons. Yet you're going to troll and pretend like this isn't the case. *shrug* Okay, I'm not interested in indulging that lol.

Laws were perhaps not the right word but rather court rulings which have stated that public spaces (including places like schools and theaters) can not discriminate based on viewpoint and content.

I agree with DDM here. Trump has never used twitter in any official business capcity.

He did, I posted a link.

What's funny, is Obama apparently retired his personal Twitter after he won and did not post from it again Jan 20th 2017. Almost like he made it a fact to inform himself of the rules and conduct of being POTUS.

I saw that. I certainly wouldn't consider that "official business".

He has used both his POTUS and personal Twitter on matters of state. He's even deleted some retweets from @POTUS to @realDonaldTrump, which is a no-no.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-19/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/resizer/9IROor-7PiYpR2pdlfo6KcWwN8E=/415x233/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RWHUFYS5EFDGZCLKO5GKPFSELU.jpg

^That is official POTUS business/policy speak out of his personal Twitter account.

edit: Here the Twitter link to that: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890196164313833472? ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm
%5E890196164313833472&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brandwatch.com%2Fblog%2Freact-realdonaldtrump-vs-potus%2F

Originally posted by Surtur
The transgender military ban has been settled. Time for folk to move on I guess.

Since the judiciary is the arbiter of legal disputes, which court ruled in favor of the ban on transgender service members? Oh, wait . . .

OK with Trans that want to Join the Military. Not OK with them doing so just to get the Operations paid for on the Gov Dime.

They want the Snip and Clip. They can Pay out of their own pockets.

End of Subject.

I've still yet to see valid explanations for why twitter should get to claim it's a platform while also claiming it has 1st amendment rights.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
OK with Trans that want to Join the Military. Not OK with them doing so just to get the Operations paid for on the Gov Dime.

They want the Snip and Clip. They can Pay out of their own pockets.

End of Subject.

Hyde amendment is also a done deal. Can't wait to see dems move on.

Originally posted by Robtard
The office of the POTUS is not a private company, it's the government and serves all citizens, not just Trump supporters, you pretending the rules are the same between the two will not change the fact that they are not.

You really need to decide if a private business has the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason or not, you can't have it both ways (like your sexuality). Bingo!

It's not really a bingo though, but you tried

Originally posted by Robtard
He has used both his POTUS and personal Twitter on matters of state. He's even deleted some retweets from @POTUS to @realDonaldTrump, which is a no-no.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-19/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/resizer/9IROor-7PiYpR2pdlfo6KcWwN8E=/415x233/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RWHUFYS5EFDGZCLKO5GKPFSELU.jpg

^That is official POTUS business/policy speak out of his personal Twitter account.

edit: Here the Twitter link to that: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890196164313833472? ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm
%5E890196164313833472&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brandwatch.com%2Fblog%2Freact-realdonaldtrump-vs-potus%2F


Nope, still not official business.


It's not business, at all, unless you are wanting to redefine The Office of the President of the United States as a business.

Trump is allowed to conduct official business from his twitter account, yes, but not his PotUS account, for sure.

Also, he can delete his tweets all he wants and not be in violation of the PRA, as well. Because they are there forever even if he deletes them.




Do you understand the the PRA had nothing to do with the Twitter-ruling against Trump? They didn't mention it, anywhere. Because blocking people isn't a violation of the PRA. Unrelated.


What ares said is correct: president shouldn't be forced to do anything with his private twitter and the company should not be regulated to force a use policy on Twitter.

^Damn, he slapped down Rob again.

Anyways, we have this google election meddling shit now too and it's mostly being ignored.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-24/google-using-ai-meddle-2020-election-prevent-next-trump-situation-veritas

Aaaand google censored the video about their censorship.

Everything is fine, this is okay. These mega corporations do not in fact wield far too much power.

Originally posted by Surtur
Aaaand google censored the video about their censorship.

Everything is fine, this is okay. These mega corporations do not in fact wield far too much power.


It's only unfair election meddling if it (supposedly) helps republicans, Surtur. You know that!

Letting the corporations run rampant to own da cons.

Originally posted by Surtur
Letting the corporations run rampant to own da cons.


Exactly! That's what "true liberals" like bashy/pootybot fully support!!


It's soooo liberal!!

And yet leftists are now getting caught up in the youtube purges, it has come back to bite them in the ass.

And of course that is only when we'll see real change, when it begins to impact the left as much as it has impacted the right. That is the sad reality here.

Originally posted by Surtur
And yet leftists are now getting caught up in the youtube purges, it has come back to bite them in the ass.

And of course that is only when we'll see real change, when it begins to impact the left as much as it has impacted the right. That is the sad reality here.


As long as it helps them beat the big bad orange meanie I'm sure that's all that really matters to them!!

Originally posted by Surtur
Aaaand google censored the video about their censorship.

Everything is fine, this is okay. These mega corporations do not in fact wield far too much power.

If these companies wield too much power then break them up. Now I don't know how to do this with a company like Twitter or Facebook, but I feel this is a far better way to deal with this supposed issue then the gov't regulating what is said on these sites.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope, still not official business.

Incorrect. Trump's discussing remolding the military there and setting new policy; that's him using his private Twitter for POTUS/government business.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect. Trump's discussing remolding the military there and setting new policy; that's him using his private Twitter for POTUS/government business.

Still not business.

Feels like a conflict of interest to do business with his PotUS Twitter while holding public office. It's a gray area of this private twitter, though.

Leaked google documents label people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson nazis.

Jesus lol. Some of the people working at these places have some of the same views as the uneducated folk here who can't properly identify nazis.

You need to stop reading Far Right/Alt-Right news like Breitbart and Newsbusters, Surt. Sensationalist shit is rotting your mind.

http://bfy.tw/OHYL

Originally posted by Robtard
You need to stop reading Far Right/Alt-Right news like Breitbart and Newsbusters, Surt. Sensationalist shit is rotting your mind.

http://bfy.tw/OHYL

You're too stupid to properly identify these folk, do better in life

Originally posted by Surtur
Leaked google documents label people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson nazis.

Jesus lol. Some of the people working at these places have some of the same views as the uneducated folk here who can't properly identify nazis.


So very true. I remember when google labelled the GOP as the "party of nazis" a few years back.

These moronic leftists have no friggin' clue what a real nazi actually is. It's quite sad that they've all been brainwashed so severely.

Originally posted by Surtur
You're too stupid to properly identify these folk, do better in life


You're strawmanning me to avoid my points. Good?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're strawmanning me to avoid my points. Good?

You didn't make a valid point. It wasn't Breitbart reporting on it. You can literally go on youtube to see the video was removed lol.

And you can view the leaked documents.

I left a 'Let Me Google That For You' link. When you search for what you said, the first two hits are Breitbart and Newsbusters stories, Surt.

Originally posted by Robtard
I left a 'Let Me Google That For You' link. When you search for what you said, the first two hits are Breitbart and Newsbusters stories, Surt. Oh Ell!

Originally posted by Robtard
I left a 'Let Me Google That For You' link. When you search for what you said, the first two hits are Breitbart and Newsbusters stories, Surt.

But that's not where I got it from lol. Try again.

Or: make the claim I got it from those places. You won't be banned for the lie.

Originally posted by Surtur
But that's not where I got it from lol. Try again.

Or: make the claim I got it from those places. You won't be banned for the lie. It's OK to be angry Surt, pats Surt on the head.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's OK to be angry Surt, pats Surt on the head.

Bro he's just not that into you.

Originally posted by Surtur
Bro he's just not that into you. come on Lola is a better song mate.

I mean you can keep trying, he does talk about dicks a lot so maybe you have a shot.

Originally posted by Surtur
But that's not where I got it from lol. Try again.

Or: make the claim I got it from those places. You won't be banned for the lie.


Sure, Jan.

Salt levels rising again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, Jan.

Salt levels rising again.

I got it from Project Veritas, but try again.

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/



Veritas video here.


Hard to form an opinion from these short clips, devoid of context. When the head of innovation says "Avoid a Trump situation", that could mean avoiding the Russian scandal, as much as avoiding Trump getting elected (Or any Republican).



Either way, the government would have moved on them with or without this.