!dev

Jesus fuck, it would be funny if it wasnt tragic:
Trump got sued because he blocked people on Twitter who had different political views than him.
According to the 1. Amendment (Freedom of Speech) that's illegal. Trump's legal team is now appealing against that verdict.

So to be clear: An american jury had to pass a verdict, that the President of the United fucking States of America can't block people on a social media platform and the lawyers of said President are now appealing against that verdict... As if there weren't more pressing matters 😒

Welcome to Amerikkka

It’s hilarious the “president” of “Mercia” thinks he’s above the constitution

If it wasn’t trump I would be calling bullshit, but it is, and it isn’t, and it just fits perfectly.

Just So you know, he is using his personal account, not the official POTUS one So if they ruled it is illegal for him to block people then this ruling should apply to other citizens of US. Also, appealing is a legal right, and he can legally exercise that right. Just sayin

@MrCSharp Yeah, but, according to the plaintiffs, because he uses his personal account kinda like the POTUS account and, more importantly, distributes official statements and information through it, it can be seen as an official government account.
(Source: https://nytimes.com/2018/05/...)

Nobody would care if he exclusively tweeted about the consistency of his morning shits and then started blocking people.

For me, America as a nation lost all credibility the day they elected that moron.

more pressing matters? like microsoft buying github? :D

@darxor it was going to be google at one stage, ms just won the bidding war 🤷‍♂️

I believe something even as small as that could result in impeachment. Isn't a president breaking an amendment cause for impeachment? Please tell me it is.

@C0D4 to be clear, blocking people on Twitter for ANY reason is NOT unconstitutional.

@DucksCanCode he didn't break an amendment.

@mjones44 I think he was referring to his constant packpaddling concerning the russians. From
"I didn't do it and you can't prove otherwise" to
"You might think you can prove it, but I still didn't do it" to
"OK, I might have done it, but even if I did it, it wasn't illegal" to
"OK, I might have done it and it probably was illegal, but hey, I'm the president, so I can pardon myself right?!"

@SpaceBearOne yea I thought the courts decision was too broad. If trump wants to block or mute someone that’s fine it’s not stopping that person from saying something and more than the fact that when you write a letter to the whitehouse the president doesn’t actually read it, it goes to some mail room.

Now if the president were banning people from a platform or forum that would be unconstitutional, since it’s limiting the outlet of free speech.

However since we seem to have quietly decided the emoluments clause does not stop you from accepting market rates at your business, I would wonder if that extends to keeping power if you are the admin of a forum and banning people for rule infractions. Very hypothetical I know, but just an exercise.