Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment

[leibowde84]

We disagree over what is consider "official capacity"



Something more than Trump's twitter account.

The following is a good article explaining why, according to the law, Trump's tweets are Official Presidential Statements.

DOJ says Trump's tweets are official presidential statements

Since his tweets are official presidential communications, wouldn't that mean he must be acting in his official capacity when writing them?

 

[Shad]

The following is a good article explaining why, according to the law, Trump's tweets are Official Presidential Statements.

DOJ says Trump's tweets are official presidential statements

Since his tweets are official presidential communications, wouldn't that mean he must be acting in his official capacity when writing them?

Your source fails to mention it was only in relation to one case. A case which resulted in nadda.

DOJ: Donald Trump’s tweets are ‘official statements of the President’

 

[wandering peacefully]

I agree but, couldn't free speech become a matter of harassment?

Free speech comes with responsibilities not to abuse the right IMO. We shouldn't use free speech to cause riots or encourage folks to break the law. If we do, we can be held accountable.

Still I doubt SNL gets close to that level. What I suspect Trump was doing was to use his platform as POTUS to encourage his supporters to stop watching SNL.

Think SNL should go after the President?

In this case, no Trump shouldn't have the power to influence the FCC to go after anyone for political reasons. As long as they are not directly encouraging violence in some form.

Citizens can send emails to the FCC anytime. I send emails all the time to the regulatory commissions.

They need to hear from the citizens about how the citizens feel aboit these policies. Not just hear from the media, politicians and special interests.

 

[leibowde84]

Your source fails to mention it was only in relation to one case. A case which resulted in nadda.

DOJ: Donald Trump’s tweets are ‘official statements of the President’

In our legal system this would be precedent, regardless of the outcome. If the courts (and the DOJ) come to the conclusion that Trump's tweets are official presidential communication, then all of his tweets will be considered the same. Precedent denies Trump the ability to pick and choose when it comes to this, especially if he never categorizes his tweets in any way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been largely avoiding this thread.
But I wonder....
How has the 1st Amendment suffered so far in his 1st half term?

 

[Shad]

In our legal system this would be precedent, regardless of the outcome. If the courts (and the DOJ) come to the conclusion that Trump's tweets are official presidential communication, then all of his tweets will be considered the same. Precedent denies Trump the ability to pick and choose when it comes to this, especially if he never categorizes his tweets in any way.

Wrong as per my source.

 

[leibowde84]

Wrong as per my source.

What is your argument?

 

[Shad]

What is your argument?

As per my source on certain tweets were considering official.

 

[leibowde84]

As per my source on certain tweets were considering official.

If Trump fails to clarify, how are we to tell the difference. It's not like s0me tweets are "official sounding" or anything. Shouldn't we hold our president to a higher standard?

 

[Shad]

If Trump fails to clarify, how are we to tell the difference. It's not like s0me tweets are "official sounding" or anything. Shouldn't we hold our president to a higher standard?

The DoJ clarified. Which was the source of your previous argument. You just didn't bother read the source beyond a word or two.

 

[leibowde84]

The DoJ clarified. Which was the source of your previous argument. You just didn't bother read the source beyond a word or two.

Can you provide an argument rather than just pointing to a source?

 

[Shad]

Can you provide an argument rather than just pointing to a source?

I told you the DOJ stated "official statements" only applied to tweets in a specific case. That is the argument I made. The link is the DOJ statement itself... Ergo evidence supporting my argument. What are you not getting?