[tertius]

I believe that it's not illegal for the president to do that. (Whether you or I like it or not.)

It is however illegal for me to do it.

And that's likely where the TOS rule comes from.

We're struggling with a spirit of the law, letter of the law issue here.

[hellbanner]

Right, because the State is the entity with a Monopoly on Violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[dredmorbius]

The correct, proper, and original formulation by Max Weber is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence.

Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state.

Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.

[hellbanner]

"The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence"

I think the "legitimate" is implied - a State is a thing that creates Legitimacy and enforces it through Violence. To supplement this it monopolizes Violence by inflicting Violence on those who commit it without Legitimacy.

[dredmorbius]

The overwhelming majority of usage online, including in this thread, strongly suggests otherwise.

The fact was an insight to me when I happened to stumble across it (researching other aspects of Weber, as it happens).

[hellbanner]

Sorry but I'm not seeing what I'm missing.

[tertius]

That's the system yes. I'm not particularly fond of it, neither am I defending it. It is what it is.

[tuxt]

It's not about legality.

Twitter is not the court or the police.

It's a private company.

[tertius]

If the TOS is based on the law, i.e. inciting violence etc. (which it likely is) then read the rest of my comment.

The President can threaten violence (and should not be hindered by private companies to do so) because he was elected to be able to do so. Whether you agree with his ability to kill in defense (etc.) or not.

[xutopia]

Illegal no... against the ToS yes.

[abtinf]

It is illegal to attempt to make foreign policy as a private citizen.

---

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[tertius]

I don't think the President should be hindered by a private company to do his job. Whether we agree with how exactly he's doing it or not.

The TOS is clearly based on law, it's legal for him to do it, so in essence the TOS regarding to his legal rights, shouldn't (in spirit) apply to him.

Now if he was doing something that he doesn't have the right to do, i.e. inciting violence against a private person, he'll break the TOS.

If all you want to say is that what he has done is strictly against the text of the TOS then sure I'll agree. But I don't think it matters.

[Retra]

The president hardly seems to be "doing his job" on Twitter.

[tertius]

I honestly don't think my or your opinion matters with regards to that.

If he tells a foreign official anything at any point in time whether it be email, phone call, twitter etc. it's official. He can't claim that he was taking a break. He can delete a tweet, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.