This is all sorts of wrong. Regardless of a person's public status if they are a user of a platform they should have the ability to block anyone they like. Particularly if they are subject to abuse. Being blocked by Trump doesn't stop people accessing his tweets. There are other mirror accounts that repost his tweets so people who want to read them without having to follow his account can do so.
This just sets a precedent for legal interference in the usability of social media.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
This is all sorts of wrong. Regardless of a person's public status if they are a user of a platform they should have the ability to block anyone they like. Particularly if they are subject to abuse. Being blocked by Trump doesn't stop people accessing his tweets. There are other mirror accounts that repost his tweets so people who want to read them without having to follow his account can do so.This just sets a precedent for legal interference in the usability of social media.
👆
It also constitutes judicial activism and, therefore, extends the power of government over individuals (both companies and individuals using those companies' resources). It's another power overreach.
Im wicked happy that our president and other elected officials are spending so much of their/our and the courts time and money on this.
I mean sure there are millions of 12 year olds around the world who can handle twitter just fine without problems, yet our elected officials act like toddlers that just got called a pee pee head in the sandbox. Its not embarrassing at all, im super proud of both sides.
Originally posted by Raptor22
Im wicked happy that our president and other elected officials are spending so much of their/our and the courts time and money on this.I mean sure there are millions of 12 year olds around the world who can handle twitter just fine without problems, yet our elected officials act like toddlers that just got called a pee pee head in the sandbox. Its not embarrassing at all, im super proud of both sides.
Well see it was whiny snowflakes who brought the lawsuit against Trump in the first place lol.
And now in order to hold both sides accountable, there will be even more lawsuits.
But yeah sarcasm aside we should be glad Trump tried to fight this bullshit, because it's wrong.
Originally posted by Surtur
Well see it was whiny snowflakes who brought the lawsuit against Trump in the first place lol.And now in order to hold both sides accountable, there will be even more lawsuits.
But yeah sarcasm aside we should be glad Trump tried to fight this bullshit, because it's wrong.
Indeed. 👆
Originally posted by Surtur
Well see it was whiny snowflakes who brought the lawsuit against Trump in the first place lol.And now in order to hold both sides accountable, there will be even more lawsuits.
But yeah sarcasm aside we should be glad Trump tried to fight this bullshit, because it's wrong.
No, it was people concerned with the rule of law. And if another court finds that the Presidential Records Act somehow applies to public officials who are not the president or vice president, then so be it. The transparency of the public record is not a bad thing. Cry more.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it was people concerned with the rule of law. And if another court finds that the Presidential Records Act somehow applies to public officials who are not the president or vice president, then so be it. The transparency of the public record is not a bad thing. Cry more.
Okie dokie! Then the folk suing AOC are just people concerned with the law.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it was people concerned with the rule of law. And if another court finds that the Presidential Records Act somehow applies to public officials who are not the president or vice president, then so be it. The transparency of the public record is not a bad thing. Cry more.
Case where the law was broken:
In June 2018, Politico reported that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.[6]
In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.[7]
In July 2018, CNN reported that The White House had suspended the practice of publishing public summaries of President Donald Trump's phone calls with world leaders, two sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN, bringing an end to a common exercise from the Republican and Democratic administrations.[8] -From the PRA wiki
iirc, Trump was also deleting Tweets after a late-night rage fit, which would also fall under the PRA's duty to preserve.
Originally posted by Robtard
Case where the law was broken:In June 2018, Politico reported that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.[6]
In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.[7]
In July 2018, CNN reported that The White House had suspended the practice of publishing public summaries of President Donald Trump's phone calls with world leaders, two sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN, bringing an end to a common exercise from the Republican and Democratic administrations.[8] -From the PRA wiki
iirc, Trump was also deleting Tweets after a late-night rage fit, which would also fall under the PRA's duty to preserve.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html
"The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
I'd love to see why this wouldn't apply to AOC. Have it make sense 👆
Originally posted by Surtur
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html[b]"The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
I'd love to see why this wouldn't apply to AOC. Have it make sense 👆 [/B]
Originally posted by Surtur
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html[b]"The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
I'd love to see why this wouldn't apply to AOC. Have it make sense 👆 [/B]
Trump was charged with violating the Presidential Records Act. He cited the First Amendment as a defense, i.e. his right to Freedom of Speech exempted him from following the law. The appeals court did not agree.
I would love to hear why you think this would apply to anyone who is not president or vice president?
Originally posted by Robtard
@surt That's not the PRA, probably that.But as I said last month, I'm cool with all politicians losing their private Twitter/sm if they use it for official business.
edit: Adam covered it above
But it says public officials. Pres and Vice aren't the only public officials. Therefore, it's silly to say this only applies to Pence and Trump.