• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment

leibowde84

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

Which way to the woods?
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

Veteran Member
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

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

Shad

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
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?
 
Top