A federal district court judge on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can’t block people from viewing his Twitter feed over their political views.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said President Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum and blocking people who reply to his tweets with differing opinions constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.
I’m sure an autocrat like Trump will respect the wishes of a court. I mean, it’s not like he has a history of attacking courts and judges, right?
How is he an autocrat? He does stuff within the US political system and he has to get stuff passed by the house and the senate. If he was an autocrat he would be just handing down executive orders left right centre like Obama did.
It seems Thom you have no idea what an autocrat is. Maybe look it up in a dictionary.
Alas …
The ruling is completely ridiculous. If someone wants to see someone’s tweets, they can just use incognito and just look at their page anyway.
Edited 2018-05-23 19:40 UTC
Not that executive orders have anything to do with being an autocrat, but you do know Trump signs more of them than Obama did, right?
Obama signed 276 executive orders in his two terms (8 years) as president (George W. Bush signed 364). In 1.5 years in office, Trump has already signed 71 (!) of them. Trump signs 53.3 orders per year; Obama did 34.6 per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executiv…
you were saying?
Okay sure he has I will concede that.
Still doesn’t make him an autocrat (as you admitted).
EDIT: Just had a look at quite a few of them. Quite a few were amendments that Obama made (I had to correct it as I had misread your wikipedia link).
Sorry Thom again, he has amended a lot of Obama’s orders … sorry none of this sticks.
You may wanna look up cognitive dissonance.
Edited 2018-05-23 19:55 UTC
Pretty sure most of those 71 executive orders trump has signed were to rescind obama’s orders. So can’t really count them IMO.
Looking through quite a few they were amendments to the exec orders Obama gave.
Anyway the whole “He is an dictator” nonsense has to die.
Also I still want to know how he is an autocrat?
“a person who behaves in an authoritarian manner; a domineering person.”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/autocrat
You can Google, you know, if you don’t understand a word.
Even if we take the 3rd definition like you did, he hasn’t acted in that manner at all. He lets people protest against him all the time and all he has done against the media that slander him is call them “fake news” and not invite them to a press conference.
You don’t know what an autocrat is. Maybe read up on Hitler, Stalin, Mao ….
Edited 2018-05-23 20:09 UTC
See, you do know what Thom meant. The very idea that an American President, elected under the Constitution of the United States, has any right to disallow protests; that any negative news coverage about him is “slander” or “fake news”; that the media must ingratiate itself to him to be permitted to operate: those are all good examples of autocratic behavior. So was the actual topic of this post: he was caught using whatever methods he had available to silence dissent (which, for the record, is the opposite of “letting” people protest).
Autocrat in every political context has been a synonym for dictator. Pretending it doesn’t is silly and tbh if you are going down that route cya.
Also while Thom thinks he knows English, I am English and I know exactly what the word means in England.
Oh gosh.
This is fucking dumb.
I said “Even if we use your (Thom’s) definition he isn’t an autocrat”. That is me saying “I think you are wrong by your own definition”
They can all operate freely, he just called them “fake news”.
Calling someone out on their behaviour isn’t autocratic. It is descriptive.
A lot of news orgs didn’t get press passes but they were a privilege and not a right from what I understand.
Edited 2018-05-23 22:51 UTC
You seriously had to use the “google your definition” trolling to attack a single needle in a haystack of the same exact needle? Really?
Does it feel good to white wash fascists who just happened to (maybe) have a lower kill rate to your current fascist regime?
The blood of Yemeni and Syrians and black people is all over Obama, but, no, let’s live in our little sandbox-y disney land.
It is pretty much part of the site now that Thom will use whatever definition he wants to prove a point while ignoring the overall argument made.
I wouldn’t let it get to you it really just shows his true colours.
TBH I consider you pretty disingenuous. This pretty much proves it.
Almost everyone knows that it basically means dictator. It is used as a synonym for dictator a lot of the time on BBC news.
The only reason you get away with it is because you are the defacto admin here.
Edited 2018-05-23 22:30 UTC
If only it was about logic. Sadly, it never is.
If a court has decided something, that’s it. That’s sacred. Can’t disagree. These people are infallible.
Imagine we had something as appeals, that would be horrible.
All hail the infallible judges.
The number one type of account being blocked is bots posting millions of anti-Trump comments. Certain groups are trying to render Trump’s tweeting useless by burying it under made up noise.
There is another group that continuously posts about made up accusations of disgusting crimes.
The headlines make you think they are banning users with differing opinions. But those “opinions” are simply masses of made up noise trying to shut him down.
Edited 2018-05-24 01:39 UTC
Are you familiar with Twitter? What people normally think of as blocking, Twitter calls “Mute”.
What Twitter calls “Block” also prevents the account in question from reading Trump’s tweets.
The article specifically points that out and explains that there would be no problem if Trump muted replies he didn’t like (akin to instructing a secretary to discard future letters from someone), rather than blocking them. (Which punishes undesired speech by denying future ability to read the President’s tweets.)
Edited 2018-05-24 02:54 UTC
It is not clear how to solve this. There are automated systems watching for Presidential tweets. Then those systems immediately respond with various anti-Trump rhetoric.
Probably be best if he disabled all responses to his tweets, but I am not sure if you can do that on Twitter.
Edited 2018-05-24 13:53 UTC
How do you propose we stop all the tweets from the president that are flat out lies, deceiving, or uninformed? All the BS he tweets that pro-Trump bots then retweet leading to mass misinformation.
Being an idiot is not illegal. You just have to use your own judgement on what to believe.
But do take the accusations against him with a grain of salt. The people making those accusations want to see him fail so they are not rendering unbiased opinions either.
Use Laurel/Yanny as an example. Two people can look at the same facts and come to completely different conclusions. Often both are right.
There’s a crap ton of authoritarian assholes here that are defending other authoritarians and don’t even know they’re authoritarian in this thread.
I bet they’re from USA or Russia too.
It might also be the case that those people simply don’t want to choose a team between purple authoritarians and yellow authoritarians.
They might not want a dog collar around their neck AT ALL.
Everybody fails to get the point.
Now it’s okay to legally control how anybody uses commercial services under a personal account – not just some limp EULA.
Not quite. Because of how Trump is using Twitter, what he’s posting counts sufficiently as “government communication” for additional laws to come into play.
If he weren’t tweeting political things while being the president, it wouldn’t matter. Because he is, laws which act as checks on the president’s power come into play.
Same sort of thing as getting fired for tweeting garbage on the company Twitter account.
Edited 2018-05-24 12:22 UTC
Wrong. Trump’s case is a special one in that 1) he is the president of the United States, and 2) his own administration has acknowledged he uses his “personal twitter” in a presidential capacity, representing the words, thoughts, and statement as POTUS.
Obviously this is extremely unique as it applies to only one person on the planet and it’s 100% FAIR that if he is using his “personal” twitter account in a presidential capacity, that his “personal” twitter account be considered as such and subjected to any laws that may apply. So, stop spreading FUD BS — nobody elses twitter is affected.
So do laws should come first, or men? ( http://www.osnews.com/comments/30300 ) You kinda can’t have it both ways, Thom…