[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

lk12yuyu7sz01.jpg


:lol: msm

trump/putin/musk/pence 2020
 
and here it comes.. stupid female judge


Judicial overreach, meet @realDonaldTrump

In a 75-page defense of crazy judicial overreach, a federal court held on Wednesday that President Trump (and anyone else with administrative permissions to his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account) cannot block other individual Twitter users, even though Twitter’s user options clearly allow it.
Click to expand...

However, the court’s analysis is flawed because of its threshold finding that any portion of Twitter itself is a traditional public forum, subject to First Amendment analysis. Just because a government official is present and speaking, those facts alone do not automatically and always convert a private forum into a public one. That the court emphasized Trump’s actual account should not be treated as a forum, but rather “the ‘interactive space’ where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets — are properly analyzed under the ‘public forum doctrines’” is a distinction without a legal difference.
Click to expand...

The court framed the legal issue as: “The primary point of dispute between the parties is whether a public official’s blocking of the individual plaintiffs on Twitter implicates a forum for First Amendment purposes,” and ultimately through some fascinating legal gymnastics, the court converted a private company into a traditional public forum subject to First Amendment analysis merely on the basis of a government official’s participation.

The better question here should have analyzed whether a government official can exercise a private platform’s provided option to limit individuals from responding directly to them according to the terms all users agree to up front? I think the answer there is clearly yes. Freedom of speech has never been held to be absolute, even in a public or government forum, and private forums have always been analyzed separately from the public forum doctrines for purposes of the First Amendment.

Further, the right to free speech is not the right to hear or to access information, and the plaintiffs here even conceded they could access the information through multiple other channels. Their contention is that they could not respond directly.

So what? Trump didn’t block these individuals from Twitter itself or in any way foreclose or limit their ability to speak within their own accounts and within their user agreement with Twitter. Moreover, there is no constitutionally protected right or provision that would allow a judge to force an elected official to opt out of certain discretionary options within a private user platform.

The court goes into a lengthy analysis of the “measurable” effects and impacts of certain Twitter functionality, such as the distinction between muting and blocking. But the court fails to consider the fact that even in government-owned and -operated buildings, the government may still exclude individuals for various reasons without constitutional violations.

Why does the analysis change when it is a government official choosing to act by blocking an individual user, when the Twitter rules clearly allow any user to block another user for any reason? What law is Trump breaking? Where has the Constitution been violated? There is no viewpoint discrimination in a private forum. Just because Trump’s attorneys in this case conceded the reason for blocking users, what difference does it make when Twitter’s rule does not require meeting specific criteria?
Click to expand...

In other words, why do the rules of a private forum that a government official has chosen to interact with apply disparately to that person simply because of their status as a government official? This opinion is dangerously leading to a conclusion that whenever a government official chooses to participate in any medium of communication, the judicial branch may exert authority and compel other branches of government to interact in that medium in specific ways.

Further, the Constitution does not apply to Twitter. Twitter is a private company. It has set up a private network and controls its network completely. It does foreclose some individuals’ access to the platform based on its established rules and also censors content at its discretion, so where does the judicial branch have authority to compel any user, government official or otherwise, to interact with a private platform in a certain specific way and override Twitter’s own rules clearly established and available for any user?

This is judicial arrogance at its highest. Twitter could shut off Trump or any other user tomorrow. There is no constitutional interplay here. This is a judge that thinks that everything deserves a government answer and everything requires judicial oversight.

These individuals registered for Twitter with the acknowledgment and acceptance of Twitters terms and conditions — in other words, knowing and agreeing to any other users’ ability to block them. Where is the injury-in-fact if the president is exercising discretionary options following user rules within a private forum that these other users have agreed to? There is no constitutionally protected right to interact directly with government officials within the context of a private forum.

This decision should be challenged and hopefully a higher court of review will write some legal sense into their opinion, otherwise it may have far-reaching and terrible implications for government officials, private companies, and First Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
 
happypuppy said:
4C9159B600000578-5764903-image-a-21_1527129279502.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/24/03/4C91C97B00000578-5764903-image-a-23_1527129402389.jpg/IMG]

These recent pictures would say otherwise.

Also in the news...

[URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5767219/Trump-CANCELS-summit-Kim-North-Korea-insults-Mike-Pence.html"]Trump CANCELS his summit with Kim after North Korea insults Mike Pence[/URL][/QUOTE]


Do you think they faked blowing up tunnels?
Click to expand...
 
We all knew that.. and I thought most smart people knew they had to destroy those tunnels anyway.. they fucked up the whole mountain with their testing
 
So the Nobel Peace Prize. . .when Obama won it, the Nobel Peace Prize was a dumb idea, didn't matter, and anyone that put any stock in it was a retard.

Fast forward to 3 weeks ago when the 8 republicans or whatever nominated Trump for the prize, people at the rallies were chanting "Nobel! Nobel!" People in TW were delirious with the idea of him winning it, and it was the subject of many pages of posts.

Now that it looks like the summit is not going to happen, is the Prize dumb again? Please let me know what I should think about the Nobel Peace Prize, thanks.
 
As I said before, I hope he wins a Nobel Peace Prize and on live television throws it in the garbage and walks away.
 
Was the concept of the prize contingent on the summit happening, happening on June 12, happening at a later date, reliant on denuclearization, or the declaration of peace? Please let me know what criteria must be met Vanster so I know what to think.
 
You're asking me why they wanted to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

I have no fucking idea. He's the antithesis of peace. I think they nominated him just hoping to one-up liberals, not because he's accomplished anything. He's noticeably fatter, so I guess that's an accomplishment of sorts.
 
No, I'm asking you what results you require for you to consider Trump to be successful with North Korean peace. If you're not willing to define that, it's because you wouldn't give him credit for anything under any circumstance.
 
Fool said:
No, I'm asking you what results you require for you to consider Trump to be successful with North Korean peace. If you're not willing to define that, it's because you wouldn't give him credit for anything under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

I think he's demonstrated that that's the case for a year or two now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top