Trump to 'sign executive order about social media

[BlueTex]

I like that, can I use it in future? Royalty free of course

It is indeed EO porn. Like a lot of the president's moves, he'll talk tough to make it look like he's 'hitting back' but either it will have no teeth or his advisors will wait till he forgets tomorrow and the matter will be quietly dropped.

Some of his supporters may thereafter collectively 'remember' the day when Trump signed an EO about twitter whether it actually happened or not, or whether it was struck down by the courts or congress.

Please use liberally... :2razz:

 

[Hatuey]

the argument isn't constitutional rights,

Oh really? Well:

Twitter violated its own mission statement by using a statutory shield to infringe on a constitutional right.

Constitutional rights seem to be a large part of your argument. You're arguing they infringed on a constitutional right.

They did not. Twitter violated its own policy. Trump made it easier to sue them for it.

That's it.

Trump isn't taking this to SCOTUS cause everyone who isn't a complete moron knows this is exactly where that issue would end up if one could argue they had infringed on his constitutional rights.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

 

[ChezC3]

This really is quite adorable.

But bluffing isn't going to work here. I've helped litigate 230 cases. I'm quite aware of how the law works.

Magical and you are a ninja for the Nagasaki clan in your spare time too.

The internet is fun!

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Magical and you are a ninja for the Nagasaki clan in your spare time too.

The internet is fun!

I thought I already explained that bluffing isn't going to work.

You're welcome to support your arguments, if you believe yourself able.

 

[ChezC3]

I don't think you're as smart or witty as you think you are.

So don’t heed my advice, it’s your target. Put it where you’d like.

 

[ChezC3]

View attachment 67281856

Nah. He just weaponized the government to attack his political opponents

 

[Casper]

Lock Him Out!
Lock Him Out!
Lock Him Out!
Damn this Is Fun ......

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So don’t heed my advice, it’s your target. Put it where you’d like.

There you go again, confusing rudeness with cleverness.

 

[ChezC3]

There you go again, confusing rudeness with cleverness.

:lamo

He thinks I'm the confused one...

 

[ChezC3]

I thought I already explained that bluffing isn't going to work.

You're welcome to support your arguments, if you believe yourself able.

Then why are you bluffing?

The onus is not on me.

You should have known that....

:lamo

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Then why are you bluffing?

The onus is not on me.

You should have known that....

:lamo

I showed you the law. It's written in plain english, and means exactly what it says.

There is no case law to the contrary.

If you're going to claim that the law really has some secret meaning contrary to its statutory text, the onus is on you to show it.

 

[apdst]

He wants to protect freedom of speech by restricting freedom of speech. He feels he has the right to say whatever he wants on Twitter but Twitter hasn't the right to say, "Fact check here."

How is he restricting freedom of speech?

 

[uptower]

and therein lies the rub, they're not publishers, that's why they were shielded. But, now they act like them, so they are, and will be dealt with as such

Again you could point to a statute or the TOCs at twitter and tell us why they can't do it.

If it was already against the law, Trump wouldn't have to sign an executive order to try and make it illegal would he?

 

[Casper]

How is he restricting freedom of speech?

You really don't get it,. Really?

 

[Plasmaball]

So if I tweet that "Trump is a Nazi!", will Twitter add a note saying there's no evidence Trump has even been a member of the National Socialist Party of 1930-s Germany and has not to date ever annexed the Sudatenland? Or will they only target conservative leaning politicians and tweets?

Dear Twitter - Either you are a publisher or a content provider. Choose one.

You arent the president

 

[Plasmaball]

There's only one US president. Does that mean they're only going to "fact-check" (aka add negative spin to) Trump's tweets? Yeah, no bias there.

Private company. Dont like it go use something else.

 

[ChezC3]

I showed you the law. It's written in plain english, and means exactly what it says.

There is no case law to the contrary.

If you're going to claim that the law really has some secret meaning contrary to its statutory text, the onus is on you to show it.

You clearly haven't been paying attention.

 

[ChezC3]

Again you could point to a statute or the TOCs at twitter and tell us why they can't do it.

If it was already against the law, Trump wouldn't have to sign an executive order to try and make it illegal would he?

You, like the other one, clearly have not been paying attention.

the EO isn't to make something illegal it is to remove exemption from Twitter for not playing by the rules.

 

[George50]

How is he restricting freedom of speech?

He wants to restrict Twitter’s ability to offer competing positions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

You, like the other one, clearly have not been paying attention.

the EO isn't to make something illegal it is to remove exemption from Twitter for not playing by the rules.

But the exemption is law.

The President doesn't have the power to repeal laws by EO.

 

[ChezC3]

But the exemption is law.

The President doesn't have the power to repeal laws by EO.

If that's what he was doing then he would be powerless, but that's not what he's doing.

As I understand it, (since these eyes haven't read it) he's reclassifying Twitter as a publisher and not a provider, thereby removing the blanket of protection. He's going after the regulatory process and standards of how these companies must act and what actions taken need to be considered verboten, making them ineligible for said protection under the law.

He's not changing the law, he's changing Twitter's classification for the law to apply.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

If that's what he was doing then he would be powerless, but that's not what he's doing.

As I understand it, (since these eyes haven't read it) he's reclassifying Twitter as a publisher and not a provider, thereby removing the blanket of protection. He's going after the regulatory process and standards of how these companies must act and what actions taken need to be considered verboten, making them ineligible for said protection under the law.

No, that's not what he did - because he doesn't have the power to do so.

You really should read the order - particularly since you're so invested in pretending to be an expert on it.

 

[ChezC3]

He wants to restrict Twitter’s ability to offer competing positions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Twitter is a forum where competing views can be offered, when Twitter uses it's forum to PUBLISH competing views it no longer is a provider and becomes a,.......PUBLISHER.

Protection does not apply

 

[ChezC3]

No, that's not what he did - because he doesn't have the power to do so.

You really should read the order - particularly since you're so invested in pretending to be an expert on it.

Sure... :ninja:

:lamo

 

[ecofarm]

Twitter is a forum where competing views can be offered, when Twitter uses it's forum to PUBLISH competing views it no longer is a provider and becomes a,.......PUBLISHER.

Protection does not apply

Who told you that?