TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Mrs.Anteater said:
In the German Tagesspiegel was an article that Twitter is now planning to delete fake news more often. The comment was that that would apply to Trumps account as well.
Click to expand...

Trump is doubly wrong about Twitter

Laurence H. Tribe, Joshua A. Geltzer


Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. Joshua A. Geltzer is executive director and visiting professor of law at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

On Tuesday, President Trump claimed — on Twitter, no less — that Twitter is “stifling FREE SPEECH,” thus suggesting that Twitter is violating the First Amendment. As usual, Trump is wrong on the law, but this time he’s even more wrong than usual. There is someone violating the First Amendment on Twitter, but it’s not Twitter — it’s Trump. What’s more, his threat on Wednesday to shut down Twitter altogether would mean violating the First Amendment in new ways.
Advertisement

Trump is utterly mistaken in claiming that Twitter is violating the First Amendment — or even that Twitter can violate the First Amendment. Prompting Trump’s outburst was the platform’s first-ever attachment of warnings to two of Trump’s tweets encouraging users to “get the facts about mail-in ballots.” Clicking the warning leads to a news story indicating that “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.” Attaching these warnings, Trump claimed, was Twitter’s First Amendment sin.

But it’s no constitutional violation. To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

Furthermore, when Twitter attaches a warning to a tweet, that constitutes speech of Twitter’s own, which is generally protected under the First Amendment from governmental censorship. Far from violating the First Amendment by speaking on top of Trump’s own speech, Twitter was exercising its First Amendment rights.

Here’s the irony: While Twitter isn’t using its platform to violate the First Amendment, Trump is. That’s not just our view; it’s what a federal appeals court held in a landmark decision last year. The court ruled that Trump was violating the First Amendment by blocking on Twitter those whose views he disliked. It is long-standing constitutional law that, when a government actor such as Trump creates a public forum in which different views are encouraged to be shared, the government can’t then pick and choose which voices to permit and which to silence. That’s what the court found Trump did, holding that, having used his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account as an official governmental public forum, Trump couldn’t then selectively censor his critics.

But it isn’t just that Trump is already committing the very violation of which he’s accusing Twitter: Astonishingly, Trump is now raising the possibility of aggravating his First Amendment offense by adding another. Apparently so outraged by Twitter’s accurately questioning his inaccurate tweets, Trump denounced social media platforms that “totally silence conservative voices” and threatened to “strongly regulate, or close them down.”

For Trump to do so would be an obvious First Amendment violation of its own. No matter what one thinks of Twitter, operating a social media platform that hosts a wide array of speech is, itself, a form of expression protected under the First Amendment. Just as Trump can’t shut down a newspaper because he doesn’t like one of its articles, he can’t close down Twitter — let alone all of social media — because he doesn’t like a warning affixed to a couple of his tweets.
Some of Trump’s congressional allies are echoing his threat in ways that also misapprehend the relevant law. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took to Twitter to say that if social media companies exercise some “editorial role like a publisher,” they should no longer receive the protections from liability afforded them under federal law.

Rubio fundamentally misunderstands the law and, in particular, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was passed precisely to provide social media companies with the flexibility to regulate content on their platforms responsibly, even as they played a very different role from that of traditional publishers because social media companies don’t scrutinize content before it is uploaded to their platforms.

In other words, Section 230 was meant to incentivize companies like Twitter to do exactly what the company just did in experimenting with a new way of moderating Trump’s relentlessly false tweets. There are thoughtful arguments for and against Section 230 in its current form, but it makes no sense to suggest that social media platforms should lose Section 230’s protections for exercising the type of content moderation that the provision was intended to facilitate.

All told, Trump is doubly wrong in his assault on Twitter. Whatever one thinks of how the company is handling the president, there is simply no legal basis for how he is handling Twitter.
 
This is interesting below -------this will get many eyes rolling I bet ------
I say
But here is the thing ----- God has used many unlikely people to carry out His Plans to victory in the Old Testament and New Testament --Paul was the most unlikely ---he went after and killed God's Chosen ----Just maybe God is using Trump for His Plan and we don't know what that Plan is ------Who are we to say Trump shouldn't be President ----- we are passing Judgment only in our ignorance of not knowing what God is up to ------

posting from Youtube
Why Some Jews Agree Comparing President Trump to King Cyrus of the Bible Makes Sense



I say
Who Was King Cyrus in the Bible ------He actually was a pagan who didn't know God personally but God Chose Him to bring the Jews back to their land after 70 years in captivity ----- Isaiah 45---

Here is another interesting thing -----#45 ---coincidence ????? --only God knows -----

From Google
What number is President Trump?
The presidency of Donald Trump began at noon EST (17:00 UTC) on January 20, 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, succeeding Barack Obama.


From Got Questions
Read about King Cyrus here if interested ------
www.gotquestions.org

Who was Cyrus in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Cyrus in the Bible? Does the biblical account of Cyrus match what secular history says about him?
www.gotquestions.org
 
I remember them. They are around, sold at specialty record shops to collectors and DJ's (the record spinning club working kind - not the radio announcers, although, maybe them too). Musicians are still releasing actual albums, "LPs".
 
Redbaron said:
45's could also refer to vinyl records, which seemed to be everywhere when I was younger, but not so much anymore. Maybe some among us here are old enough to remember them?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the collectors' vinyl editions we see today seem to be all albums. Singles are just MP3 files nowadays. Used to have a nice little collection of 45s back in the day.
 
Mendalla said:
Yeah, the collectors' vinyl editions we see today seem to be all albums. Singles are just MP3 files nowadays. Used to have a nice little collection of 45s back in the day.
Click to expand...
That was primarily what my allowance was for. How far do we go back for a single to be about a dollar? Another thread!
 
ninjafaery said:
That was primarily what my allowance was for. How far do we go back for a single to be about a dollar? Another thread!
Click to expand...

I can't even remember what I was paying in the late seventies and early eighties when I was buying them.
 
Seems God has a Spiritual meaning for numbers -----and 45 is included -----

thewayprepared.com

Prophetic Numbers in Scripture

Prophetic Numbers in Scripture The Way Prepared Yahuweh Himself considers numbers and counting as very important, and He tells us why we should do the same: So teach us to number our days, that we …
thewayprepared.com thewayprepared.com
The Way Prepared

Prophetic Numbers in Scripture

45 Provision / Protection / Preservation by Yahuweh;


I say--- interesting sequences here?-----Could Sound about right for how Donald Trump got to be President to me ------So we have the number 45--- spiritual meaning--- Sheltered by God ----We have King Cyrus sheltered by God in Isaiah 45-who Trump is compared with------and ----we have 45th President--- Trump------Just saying --
 
Cyrus let the Israelites go home. So who is Trump allowing to go home? Seems to me over the last 3 years he's been far more interested in locking people up (especially kids without parents) or keeping people out, rather than letting people go home. I guess I just don't see the parallels or similarities. They have nothing in common.
 
There's rumour that 45's leave a big hole in the plastic ...

Thus holes in the spirit that carries the music? Kerygmatic whine ...
 
Redbaron said:
Cyrus let the Israelites go home. So who is Trump allowing to go home? Seems to me over the last 3 years he's been far more interested in locking people up (especially kids without parents) or keeping people out, rather than letting people go home. I guess I just don't see the parallels or similarities. They have nothing in common.
Click to expand...

When I think of ancient leaders and Trump, I think Nero or maybe even Caligula.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top