Trump implicates Scarborough in murder.

[JimL]

Because if platforms could be sued for what someone else posts on their site, they would all have to shut down.

You can sue someone if they libel you on an online platform, no problem. You just can't sue the platform itself. For example, if your best friend starts spreading lies about you on facefook or twitter, you can sue your best friend for defamation, but you can't sue facebook or twitter. They can't be expected to monitor every post made by every person and be responsible for the content. How would they even know if your best friend was telling the truth or spreading lies?

So, since Trump can't be sued while in office, then he should be exempt from that rule anyway. Why should the President be treated differently than everyone else? Why should he be able to slander with impunity, while others can be sued for the same?

[Sparko]

So, since Trump can't be sued while in office, then he should be exempt from that rule anyway. Why should the President be treated differently than everyone else? Why should he be able to slander with impunity, while others can be sued for the same?

Yes, Trump is exempt from being sued, but if twitter decides to editorialize his posts, THEY could be sued for what Trump says! And what anyone else says. At least that is what the executive order says. Once they begin shaping the posts of others with fact-checks and corrections, then they become publishers and they become liable for all content on their site. All of it.

[Cow Poke]

So, since Trump can't be sued while in office, then he should be exempt from that rule anyway. Why should the President be treated differently than everyone else? Why should he be able to slander with impunity, while others can be sued for the same?

I think that's a misconception. He can be sued, as Bill Clinton was sued by Paul Jones, and the Supreme Court ruled [Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681(1997)*] that the suit could move forward. In the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office. The Eighth Circuit court had said that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society".

*Clinton had sued that this NOT be allowed, but did not prevail.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, Trump is exempt from being sued....

I think the confusion here may be over "sued for civil action" vs "charged with a crime, or indictment". The former is allowed, the latter is denied, except in very special circumstances, because the remedy would be impeachment, not criminal charges.

[oxmixmudd]

It is a great country, and I didn't mean any mockery - just expressing my frustrations with so much ignorance of people going on websites, and spreading their ignorance as if that ignorance is some kind of virtue. Yes that law, passed in 1996 by both parties, is a disgrace as both parties bear responsibility. And Trump is complicit as he never had any intentions to abolish it as he is a great beneficiary of that law. His latest bout to punish Twitter is only smoke and mirror as: 1) it's a law passed by Congress and only Congress can abolish or amend it; 2) it's a scare tactics hoping that Twitter will blink first and leave his tweets untouched... will see in the near future how this will pan out...

given they flagged his loot/shoot tweet, doesn't look like they will blink first.

[JimL]

I think that's a misconception. He can be sued, as Bill Clinton was sued by Paul Jones, and the Supreme Court ruled [Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681(1997)*] that the suit could move forward. In the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office. The Eighth Circuit court had said that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society".

*Clinton had sued that this NOT be allowed, but did not prevail.

I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the president would be immune from being sued under the "The federal employee's Liability act".

[Cow Poke]

I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the president would be immune from being sued under the "The federal employee's Liability act".

Citation, please.

[JimL]

Citation, please.

http://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-reso...ed-individuals

[Cow Poke]

http://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-reso...ed-individuals

Thanks, but that's about torts. I'll check it out when I have time.

[Sparko]

given they flagged his loot/shoot tweet, doesn't look like they will blink first.

I just want to say that was an idiotic and inflammatory thing for him to tweet. I actually think they do have a leg to stand on with that particular moderation, since it violates their terms of service. I do have a problem with them editorializing by "fact-checking" Government officials, especially when they are doing it to Trump but not others.

[oxmixmudd]

I just want to say that was an idiotic and inflammatory thing for him to tweet. I actually think they do have a leg to stand on with that particular moderation, since it violates their terms of service. I do have a problem with them editorializing by "fact-checking" Government officials, especially when they are doing it to Trump but not others.

I agree it should be evenly applied, but Trump is the worst abuser - squeeky wheel gets fixed would be why he's first..

[Mountain Man]

I do have a problem with them editorializing by "fact-checking" Government officials, especially when they are doing it to Trump but not others.

Especially when the "fact check" is links to opinion pieces from untrustworthy sources like CNN.

[JimL]

Especially when the "fact check" is links to opinion pieces from untrustworthy sources like CNN.

And how is it that you trust Breitbart? Do you fact check them? Who do you go to in oder to fact check, Sean hannity? Apparently the only journalism you trust is whoever it is that tells you what you want to hear.

[Mountain Man]

And how is it that you trust Breitbart?

I trust them because their stories withstand scrutiny. As much as you guys whoop and holler about Breitbart, none of you have ever shown a story I've cited to actually be wrong. The complaint is never "The facts are wrong" but "I don't like how the facts are presented".

[JimL]

I trust them because their stories withstand scrutiny. As much as you guys whoop and holler about Breitbart, none of you have ever shown a story I've cited to actually be wrong. The complaint is never "The facts are wrong" but "I don't like how the facts are presented".

So, you trust them because you fact check them?