Is there precedent for that? As in has there been other leaders whose twitter accounts have been taken down in the past for ordering military/police forces to do things?

Other leaders realize that they aren't actually using the proper channels when giving 'orders' on Twitter and generally don't even attempt to do so, so probably no, Trump is uniquely unqualified.

What is Trump's abusive Twitter behavior?

I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.

Explicit threats: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/91178931416982323...

Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480

You’re bothered by the leader of the US applying military leverage against our enemies? That’s literally his job.

Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below:

1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations.

2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then.

3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but...

4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers.

Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me.

Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast.

I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).

You know you can reply to people directly, right? It makes conversations flow much better than reply-by-edit.

I would really like to see your explanation for (4) given the constitution explicitly only gives the authority for a declaration of war to Congress (Article I, Section 8 in case you need the reference).

Regarding (1), if the president continues to bluff, then no nation can accurately gauge his or the US's intention. Continuing to threaten, but not seek out approval for, war only encourages NK (and others) behavior because they are increasingly confident he's all bark and no bite.

No. His job is not "applying military leverage". If Congress grants him the permission to go to war with a country, then he can apply the military. Otherwise, no. That is not his job.

His job is to command the military over twitter?

No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.

That's not diplomacy, it's bullying. There is a distinction.

I don't think you know what "explicit" means.

"explicit (adj): stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt"

If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.

Yeah, sorry, but that tweet is an implicit threat. What does he mean by "won't be around much longer"? The fact that you can even ask that question means it's implicit.

Am I taking crazy pills? If he had said, "...then I'm going to order a nuclear strike", that would have been explicit. Saying "they won't be around much longer" is a veiled threat, the threat is implicit.

What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.

The point is they said it was explicit, but it wasn't.

So the purpose of this thread is to enforce pedantry and ignore the actual point of the discussion. Got it.