35 ms·

POTUS has no more rights by law than any other citizen to make violent threats. POTUS has _authority_ to enact those threats in certain cases whereas one typica

POTUS has no more rights by law than any other citizen to make violent threats. POTUS has _authority_ to enact those threats in certain cases whereas one typically doesn't. For instance -- I have the right to say 'Nazis should be punched in the face' in most circumstances. It would violate Twitter TOS to tweet that however and they'd be well within their right to take that message down or ban the account. The 'spirit' of the TOS is civility in most part, not legality. Donald Trumps twitter account isn't civil. And if you disagree about that, or about the spirit of the TOS so be it -- that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit.

tertius 9y ago
> POTUS has no more rights by law than any other citizen to make violent threats. > POTUS has _authority_ to enact those threats in certain cases whereas one typically doesn't. The first quote deals with the threat. The second deals with "enacting the threats." So if you claim that he has no right to make a threat, then how can he enact something that he has no right to say? Regardless, I'm only speaking on his legal right to make threats. And yes, he does have a legal right to make violent threats. And no, Twitter's TOS does not prohibit uncivil language with a broad brush. But I agree with you that it is not purely based in law, but civility certainly is based in moral law. > that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit. You mean as in the case that we're discussing?
- albinofrenchy 9y ago
  > So if you claim that he has not right to make a threat, then how can he enact something that he has no right to say? No, I'm claiming he has no more legal right to make threats than any other person. There is a large difference there. Largely speaking a persons right to make threats is protected under the first amendment. There are very narrow instances where verbal or written threats become assault (or terrorism, or attempts to incite a riot, etc); and since one of the criteria there is ability to carry out threat, someone in a position of power has somewhat more liability here, not less. Which is all besides the point -- twitter isn't a government entity; your first amendment protections don't apply to their ban hammer. Their rules and regulations are more restrictive in all cases than what is allowed by law. > You mean as in the case that we're discussing? I mean, yes? My point is that a) Trump is in technical violation of the TOS and b) The TOS constrains the behaviors of the users, not Twitter so they have no real obligation to enforce it.
  - tertius 9y ago
    Let me be frank. > that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit. I replied. > You mean as in the case that we're discussing? Clearly your objection is that the TOS is not held in this case at all. Which could indicate that they're failing to act or they are interpreting their TOS subjectively per his special role. > No, I'm claiming he has no more legal right to make threats than any other person. This is not about freedom of speech. This is about his position, that threats are sometimes part of negotiation and he can legally threaten (as an example). Large classes of other people cannot, for instance, negotiate on behalf of the U.S. We're not arguing about the same thing here.

tertius 9y ago

> POTUS has no more rights by law than any other citizen to make violent threats. > POTUS has _authority_ to enact those threats in certain cases whereas one typically doesn't. The first quote deals with the threat. The second deals with "enacting the threats." So if you claim that he has no right to make a threat, then how can he enact something that he has no right to say? Regardless, I'm only speaking on his legal right to make threats. And yes, he does have a legal right to make violent threats. And no, Twitter's TOS does not prohibit uncivil language with a broad brush. But I agree with you that it is not purely based in law, but civility certainly is based in moral law. > that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit. You mean as in the case that we're discussing?

albinofrenchy 9y ago
> So if you claim that he has not right to make a threat, then how can he enact something that he has no right to say? No, I'm claiming he has no more legal right to make threats than any other person. There is a large difference there. Largely speaking a persons right to make threats is protected under the first amendment. There are very narrow instances where verbal or written threats become assault (or terrorism, or attempts to incite a riot, etc); and since one of the criteria there is ability to carry out threat, someone in a position of power has somewhat more liability here, not less. Which is all besides the point -- twitter isn't a government entity; your first amendment protections don't apply to their ban hammer. Their rules and regulations are more restrictive in all cases than what is allowed by law. > You mean as in the case that we're discussing? I mean, yes? My point is that a) Trump is in technical violation of the TOS and b) The TOS constrains the behaviors of the users, not Twitter so they have no real obligation to enforce it.
- tertius 9y ago
  Let me be frank. > that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit. I replied. > You mean as in the case that we're discussing? Clearly your objection is that the TOS is not held in this case at all. Which could indicate that they're failing to act or they are interpreting their TOS subjectively per his special role. > No, I'm claiming he has no more legal right to make threats than any other person. This is not about freedom of speech. This is about his position, that threats are sometimes part of negotiation and he can legally threaten (as an example). Large classes of other people cannot, for instance, negotiate on behalf of the U.S. We're not arguing about the same thing here.