Trump Sued For Blockin Twitter Users

[Lee]

Trump Sued for Blocking Twitter Users
July 11


President Donald Trump and high ranking members
of the White House staff were sued on Tuesday
by the Knight First Amendment Institute, which
alleges the president’s blocking of dissenting
Twitter users violates the Constitution.

The case filed in Manhattan federal court
seeks a court order that Trump stop the
practice. The institute, a nonprofit
organization affiliated with Columbia
University, first warned it may seek an
injunction in early June when they sent
a letter to Trump, his counsel, press
secretary, and social media director. At
the time, the institute represented two
Twitter users, both of whom said they were
blocked after criticizing the president on
the social media platform. Tuesday’s lawsuit
9represents seven such Twitter users.

In the complaint, the foundation argues that
the president’s Twitter account,
@realDonaldTrump, is “a public forum under the
First Amendment” because of how both Trump and
his staff use the account to communicate. Press
secretary Sean Spicer has previously said Trump’s
tweets are official statements.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/trump-sued-for-blocki
ng-twitter-users?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&
utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/11/2017 10:02 AM, Lee - a stupid left-wing cocksucker - bullshitted:

>
> Trump Sued for Blocking Twitter Users
> July 11

Going nowhere. Trump cannot "order" Twitter to block anyone. Twitter
is a private enterprise; they are not subject to the first amendment in
any way. The people whose accounts were blocked can go piss up a rope
as far as any first amendment violation is concerned - there is none.

Trump is not liable for Twitter doing anything.

[Fred Oinka]

Every day, it becomes quite obvious to more and more people, just why you morons lost.
Keep up the good work!

[First-Post]

And it's gonna be another instance of idiots falling flat on their
faces since the twitter account in question is Trump's long time
personal account @RealDonaldTrump and not the official presidntial
account which is @POTUS45.

Libs must really love trying to piss up ropes.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:cn89B.128092$N63.1...@fx08.iad...

> On 7/11/2017 10:02 AM, Lee - a stupid left-wing cocksucker - bullshitted:

> > Trump Sued for Blocking Twitter Users
> > July 11

> Going nowhere. Trump cannot "order" Twitter to block anyone.

Except Trump is using his twitter account in his role as President; the
argument is that he can't block anyone from receiving his tweets.

[First-Post]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

The actual presidential twitter account is @POTUS45.
The idiots are trying to sue over Trump blocking them from his
personal twitter account, @RealDonaldTrump, which he had long before
he ever spoke of even running for office.

You morons better be careful of what you wish for.
If Trump can be forced to give up the ability to block offensive
posters on his social media account then every politician out there,
dem or Repub will have to give up that same ability.
After all, congressmen have no more right to such activity than the
president. They all play as an integral role in running the nation as
the president and they also try (albeit feebly) to use their accounts
in relationship with their office.

Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer, just to name a few,
would likely shit themselves if they have to unblock the thousands of
conservative tweeters that they have blocked currently.
We'd damn sure rub their noses in it "bigly" if they had to.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:02:46 -0500, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Trump Sued for Blocking Twitter Users
>July 11
>
>
>President Donald Trump and high ranking members
>of the White House staff were sued on Tuesday
>by the Knight First Amendment Institute, which
>alleges the president’s blocking of dissenting
>Twitter users violates the Constitution.

It's his personal account. No violation of the Constitution you
moron.
>
\

[NoBody]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

The "argument" will be laughed out of court, if it makes it that far.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ok3bd0$mc1$1...@dont-email.me>, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

We have a first amendment right to petition the president and congress. The
constitution doesn't limit the manner the petition is deliverred.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ariamc5e2ifrj1kfo...@4ax.com>,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and *** to petition the Government for a redress of grievances *** .

[Siri Cruise]

In article <m4damc508a36n4m93...@4ax.com>,

First-Post <ProgressivesW...@invalid.org> wrote:

> If Trump can be forced to give up the ability to block offensive
> posters on his social media account then every politician out there,
> dem or Repub will have to give up that same ability.
> After all, congressmen have no more right to such activity than the

They already have to listen to complaints from the people. Any forum they use
for government business is potentially a way to complain to them.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:51:15 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <ariamc5e2ifrj1kfo...@4ax.com>,
> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:cn89B.128092$N63.1...@fx08.iad...
>> >
>> >> On 7/11/2017 10:02 AM, Lee - a stupid left-wing cocksucker - bullshitted:
>> >
>> >> > Trump Sued for Blocking Twitter Users
>> >> > July 11
>> >
>> >> Going nowhere. Trump cannot "order" Twitter to block anyone.
>> >
>> >Except Trump is using his twitter account in his role as President; the
>> >argument is that he can't block anyone from receiving his tweets.
>>
>> The "argument" will be laughed out of court, if it makes it that far.
>
>Amendment I
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
>the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
>
>and *** to petition the Government for a redress of grievances *** .

Read it again, slower this time. It was his private account and the
First Ammendment does not apply.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <4m8cmclchai4a6b3g...@4ax.com>,

Read some more, idiot. Drumpf has made it a forum for official, presidential
communication.

[Matt]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 4:39:06 PM UTC-4, First-Post wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:cn89B.128092$N63.1...@fx08.iad...
> >
> >> On 7/11/2017 10:02 AM, Lee - a stupid left-wing cocksucker - bullshitted:
> >
> >> > Trump Sued for Blocking Twitter Users
> >> > July 11
> >
> >> Going nowhere. Trump cannot "order" Twitter to block anyone.
> >
> >Except Trump is using his twitter account in his role as President; the
> >argument is that he can't block anyone from receiving his tweets.
>
> The actual presidential twitter account is @POTUS45.
> The idiots are trying to sue over Trump blocking them from his
> personal twitter account, @RealDonaldTrump, which he had long before
> he ever spoke of even running for office.
>
> You morons better be careful of what you wish for.
> If Trump can be forced to give up the ability to block offensive
> posters on his social media account then every politician out there,
> dem or Repub will have to give up that same ability.

Nope. The problem is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday President Donald Trump's tweets are indeed official statements.

"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized

If they are public official statements, he cannot prevent anyone from reading them. You reap what you sow.

Matt

[NoBody]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:39:27 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>

It's his private account, your spinning not withstanding. It is not
subject to a freedom of speech argument. Hang on to any thread you
can...

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ajtemc16o244gkvj1...@4ax.com>,

Good golly, you're so fucking stupid.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-sp
icer-says-n768931

'The president is president of the United States,' Spicer said, 'so they are
considered official statements by the president of the United States.'

[Gary Chamberlain]

It's an account he uses to make official statements, you idiot. His own
press secretary, Fatboy Spicer, said so.

[Joe Cooper]

Gary Chamberlain <abc...@terrell.shitbags.con> wrote in news:83N9B.225223
$wG1.1...@fx37.iad:

>> It's his private account,
>
> It's an account he uses to make official statements, you idiot. His own
> press secretary, Fatboy Spicer, said so.

@realDonaldTrump is, however, his personal account. @POTUS is his official
Presidential account.

--
"The Marxists, communists and fascists of the Democrat Party have launched
a strategy of deception, projection, and a new generation of brown shirts
who fanatically believe that their violence is honorable, and necessary, to
save America from some kind of a Fourth Reich perpetrated by the GOP."
(Douglas Gibbs )

[NoBody]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:47:20 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>

Still doesn't change the fact that it's the President's personal
account. The lawsuit has no merit. Deal with it.

[Tom Sr.]

Look who Sean Spicer called to talk with about his resignation: *CNN*

https://news.google.com/news/video/7uhL1_hG9V4/dmtc_y43mrgyGdMSdJKtlbl4Xe0dM?hl=en&ned=us

Is *that* fake news, all you far-right Trump-zombies???
. . .

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/21/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>
> Look who Sean Spicer called to talk with about his resignation: *CNN*

How many times are you going to repost that, Homo Hummel, you stupid
cocksucker?

[Tom Sr.]

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> How many times are you going to repost that, Homo Hummel, you stupid
> cocksucker?

Oh, I think not as many times as I will be posting this, Ruby:

"All the Great and Powerful Libertarian *Believer* has is
insults; he has to tell others who are more knowledgeable and more
intelligent to 'shut up' because he is *unable* to address a topic
with wisdom and thoughtfulness."


I see you got up on the Wrong Side of Life this morning, kid. You might want to lay off the keyboard for a while.

. . .

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/21/2017 1:45 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> How many times are you going to repost that, Homo Hummel, you stupid
>> cocksucker?
>
>
> Oh, I think not as many times as I will be posting this

[snip]

Not interested. *Meanwhile*:

Mortality *increased* in 2014-2015 after full implementation of ACA,
even after controlling for an unforeseen surge in opioid-related deaths.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/25/running-numbers-mortality-rates-suggests-obamacare-killing-people/

The Centers for Disease Control collects U.S. mortality statistics
and publishes them in a database called WONDER. The database is
indeed a statistical wonder, allowing researchers to slice and dice
U.S. mortality data into segments by age, gender, location, year,
cause of morbidity, and many additional criteria.

With WONDER, it is a short exercise to attempt to confirm Wilper’s
predictions. Examining U.S. adult mortality in the decade prior to
Obamacare’s insurance expansion (2004-2013), the all-cause mean death
rate for ages 15 to 64 is 310.4 people per 100,000. The rate is
fairly steady over the decade, with a low of 306.8, a high of 313.5,
and a standard deviation of 2.2. If extending taxpayer-sponsored
insurance to 15 million people since 2013 has resulted in 21,000
fewer annual deaths, then the mean death rate should decrease from
310.4 to approximately 300.

Returning to the WONDER database for 2014-15 numbers, one finds the
mean death rate is … 320.4. Well, that is unexpected. Since Obamacare
provisions extended insurance coverage, the death rate has
substantially increased, by more than 20,000 deaths per year.

A correlation does not prove causation, of course, and since we
believe health insurance reduces mortality, there must be a
coincident event causing the spike in deaths since 2014. And there is
an apparent scapegoat. An opioid crisis has gripped the United States
since Obamacare insurance expansion was implemented.

Opioids have caused thousands of early deaths, enough to distort
mortality statistics in adult Americans, and the crisis worsened
noticeably in 2014-2015. Assuming the opioid crisis is independent of
Obamacare insurance expansion (for analysis purposes only, since some
work has suggested these two phenomena may be causally linked) may
eliminate the excess deaths and show the expected reduced mortality
from health care insurance.

Fortunately, WONDER allows researchers to separate causes of
morbidity, so it is a simple matter to repeat the analysis, excluding
drug-related and other external causes of death, and clear up the
confusion about the increased U.S. mortality.

What happens when we calculate the death rate after excluding all
external causes of morbidity (ICD-10 codes for deaths caused by
drugs, alcohol, assault, suicide, and accidents—in short, anything
that is not due to an internal illness)? For the decade 2004-2013,
the death rate is 247.4 people per 100,000 population. It is more
stable than the all-cause death rate, with a low of 244.7, a high of
249.9, and a standard deviation of 1.7.

With Obamacare extending insurance to 15 million more people, this
death rate should fall to 238 per 100,000. The 2014-15 data show the
actual reported death rate among U.S. adults, excluding external
causes, is … 252.9.

This is equivalent to an excess 11,000 annual U.S. adult deaths
relative to the pre-Obamacare steady state trends, and more than
32,000 annual deaths greater than predicted by academic studies
quantifying health benefits from improved insurance coverage. It is
more than three standard deviations higher than the pre-Obamacare
mean mortality, and it has persisted for the two full years, 2014—15,
for which mortality data have been compiled.


The ACA did not reduce mortality - it did not "prevent" any deaths. The
number of deaths *INCREASED* under the ACA. That's not to say the ACA
"caused" the extra deaths, but it unequivocally *DISPROVES* the claim
that the ACA would reduce mortality.

[DoD]

"Tom Sr." <thomas.sw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:350f5cfe-3bc8-40e0...@googlegroups.com...

Nobody cares about this spat with your boyfriend... Either kiss and make up,
or take it elsewhere.