• 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!

Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,937
Reaction score
19,052
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Associated Press

Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics


NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump is asking an appeals court to restore his power to block critics on Twitter.

Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge’s ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.

The paperwork did not list grounds for the appeal. Trump and Scavino’s lawyers did not immediately respond to messages.

COMMENT:-

Hmmmm?!? What possible grounds could he have?

How about "The Appellant is the President of the United States of America and is therefore above the laws of the United States of America and that means that the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't apply to him."?

Or maybe "The Appellant has his feelings hurt when he finds out that people are saying nasty things about him, therefore - since he cannot avoid seeing what is posted to his own "Twitter" account, allowing people to post nasty things about him on his "Twitter" account is a violation of his inalienable right not to hear anything that he doesn't like hearing.".

Or possibly "The Appellant appeals because the Appellant never loses and not appealing would amount to a loss AND if the Appellant loses then that will do great harm to the United States of America since that would diminish the repute of the President of the United States of America, which would encourage terrorists and other evil foreigners which means that for the appeal not to be granted would constitute a national security threat to the United States of America and any judge who ruled against the appeal would be committing treason.".

There will be a prize for the best really silly ground for appeal.
 
From the Associated Press

Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics


NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump is asking an appeals court to restore his power to block critics on Twitter.

Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge’s ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.

The paperwork did not list grounds for the appeal. Trump and Scavino’s lawyers did not immediately respond to messages.

COMMENT:-

Hmmmm?!? What possible grounds could he have?

How about "The Appellant is the President of the United States of America and is therefore above the laws of the United States of America and that means that the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't apply to him."?

Or maybe "The Appellant has his feelings hurt when he finds out that people are saying nasty things about him, therefore - since he cannot avoid seeing what is posted to his own "Twitter" account, allowing people to post nasty things about him on his "Twitter" account is a violation of his inalienable right not to hear anything that he doesn't like hearing.".

Or possibly "The Appellant appeals because the Appellant never loses and not appealing would amount to a loss AND if the Appellant loses then that will do great harm to the United States of America since that would diminish the repute of the President of the United States of America, which would encourage terrorists and other evil foreigners which means that for the appeal not to be granted would constitute a national security threat to the United States of America and any judge who ruled against the appeal would be committing treason.".

There will be a prize for the best really silly ground for appeal.

What a complete and utter ***** he is.

Wonder if he has to grab his security binky when his fee-fees get hurt.
 
From the Associated Press

Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics


NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump is asking an appeals court to restore his power to block critics on Twitter.

Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge’s ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.

The paperwork did not list grounds for the appeal. Trump and Scavino’s lawyers did not immediately respond to messages.

COMMENT:-

Hmmmm?!? What possible grounds could he have?

How about "The Appellant is the President of the United States of America and is therefore above the laws of the United States of America and that means that the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't apply to him."?

Or maybe "The Appellant has his feelings hurt when he finds out that people are saying nasty things about him, therefore - since he cannot avoid seeing what is posted to his own "Twitter" account, allowing people to post nasty things about him on his "Twitter" account is a violation of his inalienable right not to hear anything that he doesn't like hearing.".

Or possibly "The Appellant appeals because the Appellant never loses and not appealing would amount to a loss AND if the Appellant loses then that will do great harm to the United States of America since that would diminish the repute of the President of the United States of America, which would encourage terrorists and other evil foreigners which means that for the appeal not to be granted would constitute a national security threat to the United States of America and any judge who ruled against the appeal would be committing treason.".

There will be a prize for the best really silly ground for appeal.

Or maybe its his personal twitter account and been so for years. Just sayin.
 
From the Associated Press

Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics


NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump is asking an appeals court to restore his power to block critics on Twitter.

Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge’s ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.

The paperwork did not list grounds for the appeal. Trump and Scavino’s lawyers did not immediately respond to messages.

COMMENT:-

Hmmmm?!? What possible grounds could he have?

How about "The Appellant is the President of the United States of America and is therefore above the laws of the United States of America and that means that the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't apply to him."?

Or maybe "The Appellant has his feelings hurt when he finds out that people are saying nasty things about him, therefore - since he cannot avoid seeing what is posted to his own "Twitter" account, allowing people to post nasty things about him on his "Twitter" account is a violation of his inalienable right not to hear anything that he doesn't like hearing.".

Or possibly "The Appellant appeals because the Appellant never loses and not appealing would amount to a loss AND if the Appellant loses then that will do great harm to the United States of America since that would diminish the repute of the President of the United States of America, which would encourage terrorists and other evil foreigners which means that for the appeal not to be granted would constitute a national security threat to the United States of America and any judge who ruled against the appeal would be committing treason.".

There will be a prize for the best really silly ground for appeal.

I imagine all three sound perfectly valid, with serious merit to TRump himself, especially number three, and likely 50% of his base....:roll:

These really stupid, indefensible TRump move threads take longer for the Trumplings to come in and defend, I gve this three pages before some real nonsense, that one or more of them takers entirely seriously starts getting posted for rational folk's amusement....
 
Or maybe its his personal twitter account and been so for years. Just sayin.

When he's using it in an official role as the president of the United States as the primary means of communication with the American people, it is no longer solely his Twitter account anymore.
 
Or maybe its his personal twitter account and been so for years. Just sayin.

It stopped being his "personal" twitter account when he announced that his tweets were official white house correspondence. Now it's official government record.
 
Or maybe its his personal twitter account and been so for years. Just sayin.

And if he wasn't POTUS, that wouldn't be a problem, but he ran for the job and now different rules apply to him.
 
Or maybe its his personal twitter account and been so for years. Just sayin.

Would you change your mind if the president's twitter account had actually been converted into an official white house communications tool?
 
What kind of blocking are we really talking about?

Are those "blocked" no longer even able to read his tweets?
 
What kind of blocking are we really talking about?

Are those "blocked" no longer even able to read his tweets?

If you're blocked by a person, you can no longer "follow" someone like POTUS or view their Tweets when signed in under your user name. I follow @realDonaldTrump so every Tweet of his shows up automatically in my feed and I can view and reply. Those blocked can't see or reply to his tweets when signed in.

They CAN enter twitter.com in the address box of a browser, search for @realDonaldTrump, find his tweets and read them, but not if they sign in. And if someone blocked wants to reply to a tweet, they can't under the blocked user name or without signing in. So they could theoretically also create another user name, and view and reply, until he blocks them again.

Bottom line is we all know Trump uses Twitter as an official communications tool for Trump as POTUS, regularly discusses issues related to his role as POTUS, and arbitrarily "blocking" citizens from access to an official communications tool of the POTUS seems clearly out of bounds.
 
Or maybe its his personal twitter account and been so for years. Just sayin.

Or maybe he wasn't the President of the United States of America and hadn't been for longer than he had a "Twitter" account.

Things do change you know.
 
What kind of blocking are we really talking about?

Are those "blocked" no longer even able to read his tweets?

The ruling puts twitter, when used by the President or other government officials for government purposes on par with any other public fora. The government can't stifle speech there any more than they can in a real public square.
 
The ruling puts twitter, when used by the President or other government officials for government purposes on par with any other public fora. The government can't stifle speech there any more than they can in a real public square.

Quite right.

That's why there are no "Protest Zones" in the United States of America where people who disagree with some public figure are allowed to voice their opinion while being kept out of sight and out of mine, and why those people who voice those opinions outside of those "Protest Zones" get arrested for "Causing a Disturbance".
 
The ruling puts twitter, when used by the President or other government officials for government purposes on par with any other public fora. The government can't stifle speech there any more than they can in a real public square.

Was the President stifling speech?

What kind of blocking powers was he given by Twitter?
 
Was the President stifling speech?

What kind of blocking powers was he given by Twitter?

According to the judge yes. By blocking users on Twitter he deprived them of the ability to criticize his policy pronouncements on Twitter. He deprived them of the ability to put their views on display in front of other Twitter users who follow the president.

And the judge is absolutely right.
 
............... and Trump was heard SCREAMING, "Mommy, folks won't quit bugging me on Twitter; it's so UNFAIR" ........
 
Back
Top Bottom