It's time to stop giving media and mind space to Trump. He's leaving in 10 days. I don't know what arguers and media grifters will do once he's gone.
+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Replace him, and run for office ourselves. Resist and be thorns in the sides of the fascist movment in any way we can. deriving IMMENSE pleasure in troubling the movement at every turn. We will not hinge hope on a decisive blow, but instead small saps. Devour a whale one bite at a time. Use their own tactics against them. Adapt to their warfare. Pioneer our own. decentralize and operate covertly and independently.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Perhaps if the government was to set up the infastructure of the interent, became an ISP, and set up platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Then it would be a public forum and public space, covered under the constitution. Would never happen though.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
It is absolutely a violation of the first amendment.
1. The bill of right served to dispense liberties unto it's citizens.
2.The president, though the leader of the government authority is still a citizen of the United States first and foremost, and is entitled to all of the same constitutional rights as every one else.
3. The internet is the modern day equivilent to the public square. Even more so now than ever that we are under the DRACONIC orders of "Stay in your house" The president must not be impeded from adressing the people within the public square in a manner of his choosing under any circumstances.
4. Censorship is not America. We will not uphold the values of the group above the individual. That is explicitly AGAINST the constitution.
5. The censorship isn't stopping there, and won't stop there.
Video refuted.
He had a good point a long time ago on 2nd amenders vs gun nuts. But He's totally brainwashed by the media to the point that he supporting a fascist take over. Can't respect most of his views.
I watch him every day, as part of getting both sides of the story. He's usually very wrong and I constantly refute his statements. His supporters have NO CLUE.
I appreciate that he's interested in healing the country though I have no intention of doing it under the terms he's suggested.
As far as I'm concerned we need a full roll back right to the constitution. Dismantle everything non essential in government.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Think about it this way, you dont have a right to come into my house and say whatever you want and cry about your rights being infringed when I kick you out. Same goes for a business you or I might own. They may invite the public into their space but they dont have to allow you anything and can kick you out for any reason. Restricting that right would be a violation of the rights of the business. Twitter and Facebook are businesses that allow the public on their platform and they can chose to kick you off for whatever reason they chose. Same goes for ISP.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Your home does not function as a conduit to the people, nor is it charged with preserving federal written record from the President.
That's why it's constitutionally wrong and is a violation of the first amendment.
It's not the same thing as telling Trump to get out of your store. Anything involving press and print that documents what he says to the public matters. And Jack Dorsey is backflipping trying to explain to people how he is not breaking the law. His arguements are weak sauce, and smell of faithlessness.
Even then, What's also concerning is fascist big tech believes it has the authority to decide what people should see and hear. And they are actively projecting themselves onto smaller companies that have nothing to do with them.It's evil, and will be resisted.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
so if i wanted to be on fox news, does fox news have a choice about it?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
If you are the President. It's unlawful for them to edit or remove any public statements you make once they have hosted you on their platform.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
i looked around and could find anything about that, which makes me think you might be mixing up a few things. like censure. which is to condemn someone for something they said or did. then follow up with an impeachment(thats all done by the government) and news media choosing not to give someone a platform. i couldn't find a single thing that said the president of the united states has special privileges that forces media companies to print or air anything he says. the closet i could get is stuff about how anyone running for office gets reasonable access to run campaing ads. nothing that says news medias have to air his presidential address' or print anything he says.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
also. twitter and facebook didnt boot the president, they booted trump, which is a game that trump and alot of his staff have been playing. they have a personal account and a official white house account. they talk shit with the personal accounts and pretend they're different people on the official accounts.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit (Long Spike)
They also removed POTUS by suspending it until transfer of power.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
this account is active, https://twitter.com/POTUS. it had a msg deleted when trump tried to use it for non official business like complaining about his suspension
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
If you are the President. It's unlawful for them to edit or remove any public statements you make once they have hosted you on their platform. = Past tense. As in Once they have ALREADY hosted you as president. Once a public statement has been made They are public record.
It's not a priviledge at all. It's meant to hold the president to account and documentation purposes.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
if it's unlawful that means you have law or a rule against it. where is this cause i can't find it
By Twitter taking down his tweets, the platform has denied public access to the presidents written statement.
People were flipping out about Trump editing his typos, but this act also protects that.
Specifically, the PRA:
Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.
Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).
Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.
Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
how do you read this?
(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
What about this are you questioning SPECIFICALLY?
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
trump on twitter is not presidential records, he's tweeting as himself, not as the president of the united states, ie. but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. and if they are not presidential records they are personal records and notice how nothing you put up says personal records are protected, actual you did, "Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
"trump on twitter is not presidential records, he's tweeting as himself, not as the president of the united states,"
That does NOTHING to change the FACT that he IS the President, and WAS the President when making public statements to the people. This act cover ALL public records and statements made by the incumbent President.
And he was using Twitter to carry out his constutional duty to adress the people.
Also, telling people to stop violence and go home in peace IS a CONSTITUTIONAL duty. That Twitter has obstructed.
PERSONAL information is things like adresses, tax returns medical records etc. Personal meaning NOT PUBLIC.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
"That does NOTHING to change the FACT that he IS the President, and WAS the President when making public statements to the people." i only hope that you had a tear rolling down your cheek as you wrote that.
that act covers presidential records, anything the president does as donald trump is personal records which are not covered by that act. msgs from the president to the public come from official channels. not a guy sitting on the shitter at 4am. donald trump writing your moms phone number down on the bathroom wall of a truck stop is not presidential records. it can be wiped off
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
If Twitter wasn't the place where these written records were made first. And if Twitter wasn't used as a public forum. I would agree.
But that's not reality.
Now if this bathroom wall was a public forum, and the venue chose to host the Presidents message on this forum to begin with, then you are accepting the responsibility of preserving these records. Especially if the administration OR PUBLIC needs to see them or use them for record keeping purposes or otherwise.
You can take down a flyer, even if the President posted it. But the public must have access to the original information any time they ask. FROM TWITTER Especially because twitter has the original documentation.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
it doesn't matter if its first, it matters if its official.
you and like alot of other people are stuck in this thing where you think trump campaign manager kayleigh mcenany on fox news talking about election fraud claims and then a few hours later on fox news she back on but as press secretary kayleigh mcenany who's now refering all questions about her ealier statesment to the trump campaign, are the same person when they are not. thats why potus twitter is still around and realdonaltrump isn't
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
So you are Claiming RealDonaldTrump is not actually Donald Trump?
Any Proof of this claim? Or That what ever "Evidence" you submit is PROVEN as Truth?
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
huh? realdonaltrump was a verified account, it was trump's personal account. he might not have been the one typing but it was his account. it wasn't the official presidents twitter account. the one to be used for constitional duties of contacting people. its been a while but month and months ago, realdonaldtrump tweeted that the russia documents should be released. some people filed for them, doj said trumps tweets shouldn't be taken literally or be trusted. but it was months ago, so i dont remember all of it. think is what i got from history.
So if a President tells his secretary to write down a statement, it's not from the President because he wasn't typing?
Nope.
What you have said does not change the law.
The king of England didn't believe the declaration of independence was legitimate or official. After all, he is the king. Only his laws are official.. He was wrong, and he did everything he could about it under his RIGHTFUL authority. That is, until the war was won.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
depends what the statement is. heres the definition of personal records.
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
if its to pick up his laundry no. if its involved in his official capacities as the president, yes.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
It's not a diary or Journal. Or even REMOTELY equivilent. It's public. ANY twisting of the facts or reframing of this issue is immediately FALSE.
He did in fact use twitter to carry out constitutional duties. Calling for peace is one of them.
Twitter obstructed that SACRED adress, there is no way out of that without cheating the system. And it will always be viewed that way by those that cling to liberty.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
i'm replying to my own comment cause i don't want to cut off the edits. but i fucking crushed you
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Actually, Your imaginary empire was built on sand. Try again. You'll get it eventually, and I'll clap for you.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
actually, in this imaginary empire, i'm the sand. i shift with the wind, i get in everywhere and you'll never get it all out. you'll get it eventually, and I'll clap for you.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Just like your opinions. = Unreliable.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
i think a review of conversations would prove otherwise. but as a joke, where would you put me?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Where do you put yourself?
But if you want MY statement. You are wrong and have been every time we have argued.
Except last night, when I thought the rioters being punished were regular citizen's and not criminals.
Then you have corrected me, and I admitted I was wrong. Which is blatant PROOF I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.
The trick is, you have to make me BELIEVE I am wrong first.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
"Your home does not function as a conduit to the people," Actually it does, anywhere the mailman can go is open to the public as an "invitation". Just as does your driveway. The SCOTUS has ruled on that issue many times already. Also, there is no legal difference between a person and a business, that is why I referenced your home. What of I have an estate sale or a garage sale, hell howw about a family and friend BBQ, that is inviting the public.
"nor is it charged with preserving federal written record from the President." I dont think so at all. You cannot file an open records request with a private company. unless they have a contract with the government and get most of their funding from the government, but even then they have many protections in regards to proprietary information and third party confidentiality loop holes. The government cannot come up to my house or my business and demand they post flyers or advertisements on my building or house and then demand I "preserve it". There is not much of a difference.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Everyone, even a president or a government institution, has to sign up to the t's and c's of a service. If this service limits some sort of free speech, as facebook, twitter and other social media do, and they think that is "unconstitutional" they either don't sign up or will have to go down the legal route to change this.
Simple.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Which brings us back to reforming AC 230 which would fix all of that, and make censorship of opinions illegal.
Yeah, they are sueing. This time without warning or a cease and desist.
Time to cash out. If not, then court trolling begins.
Either way, wasting Jeff's time is a win. I hope a swarm of companies stagger the lawsuits one at a time, so he is spending every day on these cases for years.
Just wasting his VALUEABLE time is an automatic win.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
This is a tough one, one that I have put alot of thought into, and I dont know what can be done. The government cannot force you or I or a business to do anything against our will, just like how the government cannot force me to put advertisements or political flyers on the side of my house, they cannot force me to platform them, big tech cannot be forced to platform anyone against their will. An internet bill of rights comes close but it would be struck down pretty fast by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. 230 only protects from lawsuits, it does not and cannot dictate how they chose to platform people, or in other words how they function or chose who and what is allowed on their sites. Just like how the government cannot tell me what I can and cannot say, they cannot tell a business what they can and cannot do with their websites. They can only shield them from liability, which is all bill 230 does. The flipside of having a right to free speech and choosing which side to favor is that the government cannot tell you which side not to favor.
If there was something that could have been done I think they would have tried. Im sure Trump has asked/demanded many of times but was probably told nothing can be done. On top of that, all the silicon valley big tech and ISP have the politicians in their pockets. AOC blasted the Congress for having their orientation hosted by Comcast and Spectrum, Biden had a private fundraising party at Comcasts CEO house the night he announced he was running for POTUS. We cant even get Net Neutrality bills passed and it keeps getting attacked every few years. Like I said, there is no easy solution.
Comments
(Old Spike)
It's time to stop giving media and mind space to Trump. He's leaving in 10 days. I don't know what arguers and media grifters will do once he's gone.
(Old Spike)
Replace him, and run for office ourselves. Resist and be thorns in the sides of the fascist movment in any way we can. deriving IMMENSE pleasure in troubling the movement at every turn. We will not hinge hope on a decisive blow, but instead small saps. Devour a whale one bite at a time. Use their own tactics against them. Adapt to their warfare. Pioneer our own. decentralize and operate covertly and independently.
(sounds retarded)
Perhaps if the government was to set up the infastructure of the interent, became an ISP, and set up platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Then it would be a public forum and public space, covered under the constitution. Would never happen though.
(Old Spike)
It is absolutely a violation of the first amendment.
1. The bill of right served to dispense liberties unto it's citizens.
2.The president, though the leader of the government authority is still a citizen of the United States first and foremost, and is entitled to all of the same constitutional rights as every one else.
3. The internet is the modern day equivilent to the public square. Even more so now than ever that we are under the DRACONIC orders of "Stay in your house" The president must not be impeded from adressing the people within the public square in a manner of his choosing under any circumstances.
4. Censorship is not America. We will not uphold the values of the group above the individual. That is explicitly AGAINST the constitution.
5. The censorship isn't stopping there, and won't stop there.
Video refuted.
He had a good point a long time ago on 2nd amenders vs gun nuts. But He's totally brainwashed by the media to the point that he supporting a fascist take over. Can't respect most of his views.
I watch him every day, as part of getting both sides of the story. He's usually very wrong and I constantly refute his statements. His supporters have NO CLUE.
I appreciate that he's interested in healing the country though I have no intention of doing it under the terms he's suggested.
As far as I'm concerned we need a full roll back right to the constitution. Dismantle everything non essential in government.
(sounds retarded)
Think about it this way, you dont have a right to come into my house and say whatever you want and cry about your rights being infringed when I kick you out. Same goes for a business you or I might own. They may invite the public into their space but they dont have to allow you anything and can kick you out for any reason. Restricting that right would be a violation of the rights of the business. Twitter and Facebook are businesses that allow the public on their platform and they can chose to kick you off for whatever reason they chose. Same goes for ISP.
(Old Spike)
Your home does not function as a conduit to the people, nor is it charged with preserving federal written record from the President.
That's why it's constitutionally wrong and is a violation of the first amendment.
It's not the same thing as telling Trump to get out of your store. Anything involving press and print that documents what he says to the public matters. And Jack Dorsey is backflipping trying to explain to people how he is not breaking the law. His arguements are weak sauce, and smell of faithlessness.
Even then, What's also concerning is fascist big tech believes it has the authority to decide what people should see and hear. And they are actively projecting themselves onto smaller companies that have nothing to do with them.It's evil, and will be resisted.
(Long Spike)
so if i wanted to be on fox news, does fox news have a choice about it?
(Old Spike)
If you are the President. It's unlawful for them to edit or remove any public statements you make once they have hosted you on their platform.
(Long Spike)
i looked around and could find anything about that, which makes me think you might be mixing up a few things. like censure. which is to condemn someone for something they said or did. then follow up with an impeachment(thats all done by the government) and news media choosing not to give someone a platform. i couldn't find a single thing that said the president of the united states has special privileges that forces media companies to print or air anything he says. the closet i could get is stuff about how anyone running for office gets reasonable access to run campaing ads. nothing that says news medias have to air his presidential address' or print anything he says.
(Long Spike)
also. twitter and facebook didnt boot the president, they booted trump, which is a game that trump and alot of his staff have been playing. they have a personal account and a official white house account. they talk shit with the personal accounts and pretend they're different people on the official accounts.
(Long Spike)
They also removed POTUS by suspending it until transfer of power.
(Long Spike)
this account is active, https://twitter.com/POTUS. it had a msg deleted when trump tried to use it for non official business like complaining about his suspension
(Old Spike)
If you are the President. It's unlawful for them to edit or remove any public statements you make once they have hosted you on their platform. = Past tense. As in Once they have ALREADY hosted you as president. Once a public statement has been made They are public record.
It's not a priviledge at all. It's meant to hold the president to account and documentation purposes.
(Long Spike)
if it's unlawful that means you have law or a rule against it. where is this cause i can't find it
(Old Spike)
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
By Twitter taking down his tweets, the platform has denied public access to the presidents written statement.
People were flipping out about Trump editing his typos, but this act also protects that.
Specifically, the PRA:
(Long Spike)
how do you read this?
(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
(Old Spike)
What about this are you questioning SPECIFICALLY?
(Long Spike)
trump on twitter is not presidential records, he's tweeting as himself, not as the president of the united states, ie. but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. and if they are not presidential records they are personal records and notice how nothing you put up says personal records are protected, actual you did, "Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."
(Old Spike)
"trump on twitter is not presidential records, he's tweeting as himself, not as the president of the united states,"
That does NOTHING to change the FACT that he IS the President, and WAS the President when making public statements to the people. This act cover ALL public records and statements made by the incumbent President.
And he was using Twitter to carry out his constutional duty to adress the people.
Also, telling people to stop violence and go home in peace IS a CONSTITUTIONAL duty. That Twitter has obstructed.
PERSONAL information is things like adresses, tax returns medical records etc. Personal meaning NOT PUBLIC.
(Long Spike)
"That does NOTHING to change the FACT that he IS the President, and WAS the President when making public statements to the people." i only hope that you had a tear rolling down your cheek as you wrote that.
that act covers presidential records, anything the president does as donald trump is personal records which are not covered by that act. msgs from the president to the public come from official channels. not a guy sitting on the shitter at 4am. donald trump writing your moms phone number down on the bathroom wall of a truck stop is not presidential records. it can be wiped off
(Old Spike)
If Twitter wasn't the place where these written records were made first. And if Twitter wasn't used as a public forum. I would agree.
But that's not reality.
Now if this bathroom wall was a public forum, and the venue chose to host the Presidents message on this forum to begin with, then you are accepting the responsibility of preserving these records. Especially if the administration OR PUBLIC needs to see them or use them for record keeping purposes or otherwise.
You can take down a flyer, even if the President posted it. But the public must have access to the original information any time they ask. FROM TWITTER Especially because twitter has the original documentation.
(Long Spike)
it doesn't matter if its first, it matters if its official.
you and like alot of other people are stuck in this thing where you think trump campaign manager kayleigh mcenany on fox news talking about election fraud claims and then a few hours later on fox news she back on but as press secretary kayleigh mcenany who's now refering all questions about her ealier statesment to the trump campaign, are the same person when they are not. thats why potus twitter is still around and realdonaltrump isn't
(Old Spike)
So you are Claiming RealDonaldTrump is not actually Donald Trump?
Any Proof of this claim? Or That what ever "Evidence" you submit is PROVEN as Truth?
(Long Spike)
huh? realdonaltrump was a verified account, it was trump's personal account. he might not have been the one typing but it was his account. it wasn't the official presidents twitter account. the one to be used for constitional duties of contacting people. its been a while but month and months ago, realdonaldtrump tweeted that the russia documents should be released. some people filed for them, doj said trumps tweets shouldn't be taken literally or be trusted. but it was months ago, so i dont remember all of it. think is what i got from history.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-investigation-documents-tweets-release
(Old Spike)
So if a President tells his secretary to write down a statement, it's not from the President because he wasn't typing?
Nope.
What you have said does not change the law.
The king of England didn't believe the declaration of independence was legitimate or official. After all, he is the king. Only his laws are official.. He was wrong, and he did everything he could about it under his RIGHTFUL authority. That is, until the war was won.
(Long Spike)
depends what the statement is. heres the definition of personal records.
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
if its to pick up his laundry no. if its involved in his official capacities as the president, yes.
(Old Spike)
It's not a diary or Journal. Or even REMOTELY equivilent. It's public. ANY twisting of the facts or reframing of this issue is immediately FALSE.
He did in fact use twitter to carry out constitutional duties. Calling for peace is one of them.
Twitter obstructed that SACRED adress, there is no way out of that without cheating the system. And it will always be viewed that way by those that cling to liberty.
(Long Spike)
i'm replying to my own comment cause i don't want to cut off the edits. but i fucking crushed you
(Old Spike)
Actually, Your imaginary empire was built on sand. Try again. You'll get it eventually, and I'll clap for you.
(Long Spike)
actually, in this imaginary empire, i'm the sand. i shift with the wind, i get in everywhere and you'll never get it all out. you'll get it eventually, and I'll clap for you.
(Old Spike)
Just like your opinions. = Unreliable.
(Long Spike)
i think a review of conversations would prove otherwise. but as a joke, where would you put me?
(Old Spike)
Where do you put yourself?
But if you want MY statement. You are wrong and have been every time we have argued.
Except last night, when I thought the rioters being punished were regular citizen's and not criminals.
Then you have corrected me, and I admitted I was wrong. Which is blatant PROOF I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.
The trick is, you have to make me BELIEVE I am wrong first.
(sounds retarded)
"Your home does not function as a conduit to the people," Actually it does, anywhere the mailman can go is open to the public as an "invitation". Just as does your driveway. The SCOTUS has ruled on that issue many times already. Also, there is no legal difference between a person and a business, that is why I referenced your home. What of I have an estate sale or a garage sale, hell howw about a family and friend BBQ, that is inviting the public.
"nor is it charged with preserving federal written record from the President." I dont think so at all. You cannot file an open records request with a private company. unless they have a contract with the government and get most of their funding from the government, but even then they have many protections in regards to proprietary information and third party confidentiality loop holes. The government cannot come up to my house or my business and demand they post flyers or advertisements on my building or house and then demand I "preserve it". There is not much of a difference.
(Old Spike)
Everyone, even a president or a government institution, has to sign up to the t's and c's of a service. If this service limits some sort of free speech, as facebook, twitter and other social media do, and they think that is "unconstitutional" they either don't sign up or will have to go down the legal route to change this.
Simple.
(Old Spike)
Which brings us back to reforming AC 230 which would fix all of that, and make censorship of opinions illegal.
(Old Spike)
Doesn't bring "us" back to anything, lol.
Should have signed up for parler.... oh, wait....
(Old Spike)
Yeah, they are sueing. This time without warning or a cease and desist.
Time to cash out. If not, then court trolling begins.
Either way, wasting Jeff's time is a win. I hope a swarm of companies stagger the lawsuits one at a time, so he is spending every day on these cases for years.
Just wasting his VALUEABLE time is an automatic win.
(sounds retarded)
This is a tough one, one that I have put alot of thought into, and I dont know what can be done. The government cannot force you or I or a business to do anything against our will, just like how the government cannot force me to put advertisements or political flyers on the side of my house, they cannot force me to platform them, big tech cannot be forced to platform anyone against their will. An internet bill of rights comes close but it would be struck down pretty fast by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. 230 only protects from lawsuits, it does not and cannot dictate how they chose to platform people, or in other words how they function or chose who and what is allowed on their sites. Just like how the government cannot tell me what I can and cannot say, they cannot tell a business what they can and cannot do with their websites. They can only shield them from liability, which is all bill 230 does. The flipside of having a right to free speech and choosing which side to favor is that the government cannot tell you which side not to favor.
If there was something that could have been done I think they would have tried. Im sure Trump has asked/demanded many of times but was probably told nothing can be done. On top of that, all the silicon valley big tech and ISP have the politicians in their pockets. AOC blasted the Congress for having their orientation hosted by Comcast and Spectrum, Biden had a private fundraising party at Comcasts CEO house the night he announced he was running for POTUS. We cant even get Net Neutrality bills passed and it keeps getting attacked every few years. Like I said, there is no easy solution.