President Trump sued for blocking people on Twitter

[Jingthing]

I was enjoying the show or should I say circus.  However now it is becoming way beyond the joke that Trump initially was as he continues on his journey of destruction.  Hopefully it will become self-destruction anytime soon.

He's all about self destruction but think of a horror movie where the clownish monster keeps resurrecting. It won't be quick or easy to remove this presidential wart.

[janclaes47]

25 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It won't be quick or easy to remove this presidential wart.

 

And the only reason for that is that the liberal losers are blowing a lot of air, but hold little concrete evidence or facts, otherwise it would be an easy job.

[Jingthing]

 
And the only reason for that is that the liberal losers are blowing a lot of air, but hold little concrete evidence or facts, otherwise it would be an easy job.

No. You are wrong. Under the U.S it is never easy to legally remove a president. That's by design, and when the president’s party controls the house and senate nearly impossible.
That's too bad in this case as trump is damaging the country on a daily basis.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

We'll he's not an official, so doesn't apply. Further, the ignore function on this forum does work the same as tweeter's. When you block another poster, you just don't see his comments (unless quoted by others), the ignored party can still read posts by you and comment on them.

Even stronger, the person who blocked can still read the posts from the ignored user if wanted.

[Foozool]

He just want to say without listening. 

Simple as that. 

?

[JHolmesJr]

15 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

 

Its a government information channel, he announces policy on there. you cant ban people from government information

 

 

Get with it…..twitter ain't bingo…..if you're banned its only from posting drivel on someone else's twitter feed. you can still 

read the important updates that send you into a tizzy.

[iReason]

17 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

obstruction is the way losers react in american politics….

 

This kind of obstruction?:

During off-camera briefing, Sanders says the White House is 'as transparent as humanly possible'

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/12/white-house-transparent-sarah-huckabee-sanders-240469

 

Let the contradiction in that headline sink in. 3, 2, 1...

 

Obstructing the press and the right of the people to respond to their public servant as well?

[dick dasterdly]

17 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

I control my twitter, I control my Facebook, I control my email, so should the POTUS.

I agree, but only if official announcements/policy are made public through official channels.

 

If he uses twitter for official announcements (rather than just his opinion on various subjects) - then the protesters have a point.

Edited July 13, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/12/2017 at 6:17 PM, wwest5829 said:

Hmmm, sorry. You either did not read the legal reasoning or you simply choose to ignore it. Fortunately, in either case, your outlook has no validity. That said, my 1st impression of the headline was much as you expressed. However, after learning the reasoning, I have to agree that the point is, if he is using this as a public forum of government, then he is not entitled to block. It will be interesting to watch as it and other matters unfold.

Interesting that he can block and bar reporters from the pressroom but isn't allowed to manage his own Twitter account. None of those people are being blocked from Reading his tweets, they also no being blocked from responding to those tweets, they're only being blocked from wasting the POTUS's time by responding directly to his account.

[stevenl]

52 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Interesting that he can block and bar reporters from the pressroom but isn't allowed to manage his own Twitter account. None of those people are being blocked from Reading his tweets, they also no being blocked from responding to those tweets, they're only being blocked from wasting the POTUS's time by responding directly to his account.

" Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them. " So in contrast to your words they are blocked from reading his tweets.

And since Trump is using Twitter as a WH communication means it is not his own Twitter account, but official WH communication, as has been declared by Sean Spicer earlier.

[mrwebb8825]

53 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them. " So in contrast to your words they are blocked from reading his tweets.

And since Trump is using Twitter as a WH communication means it is not his own Twitter account, but official WH communication, as has been declared by Sean Spicer earlier.

and since every single tweet gets published by the MSM therefor, NOT stopping them from reading or responding, then blocking a few discontents to keep a main WH source flowing smoothly is within his rights as he can have physical reporters blocked when he wishes.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

and since every single tweet gets published by the MSM therefor, NOT stopping them from reading or responding, then blocking a few discontents to keep a main WH source flowing smoothly is within his rights as he can have physical reporters blocked when he wishes.

Your analogy to physical reporters is hardly the cut-and-dried case you make it out to be.

“That was unconstitutional,” he said. “If you exclude reporters from briefings that they otherwise have a right to attend because you don’t like their reporting, then you have engaged in viewpoint discrimination.” Viewpoint discrimination by the government in a public forum is almost always unconstitutional."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/white-house-barring-reporters-from-briefings.html?_r=0

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

and since every single tweet gets published by the MSM therefor, NOT stopping them from reading or responding, then blocking a few discontents to keep a main WH source flowing smoothly is within his rights as he can have physical reporters blocked when he wishes.

I very much doubt you're correct here.

 

And you can try to twist and turn now, your original post contained 2 main points, both are proven to be incorrect.