川普推特治国，本身是否就已经涉嫌违法？

Good point，不知道那些twitter玩的很多的政客会不会支持。

川普是行政机构的人，但是不代表川普个人推特号发布的信息是白宫发布的信息。“总统川普”和“自然人川普”在法律上还是不一样的。比如川普个人的文件，签的是川普的名字，不盖美国总统章，川普总统的文件则不仅要签川普的名字，还要盖总统章。

@虫文门 #121647 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act

@消极 #121649

Provisions

There are three key restrictions on the U.S. State Department in the Smith–Mundt Act.

The first and most well-known restriction was originally a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department. The original intent was the Congress, the media and academia would be the filter to bring inside what the State Department said overseas. In 1967, the Advisory Commission on Information (later renamed the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy) recommended the de facto prohibition on domestic distribution be removed noting that there is "nothing in the statutes specifically forbidding making USIA materials available to American audiences. Rather, what began as caution has hardened into policy."[13] This changed in 1972 when Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) argued that America's international broadcasting should take its "rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics" as he successfully amended the Act to read that any program material "shall not be disseminated" within the U.S. and that material shall be available "for examination only" to the media, academia, and Congress (P.L. 95-352 Sec. 204). In 1985, Senator Edward Zorinsky (D-NE) declared USIA would be no different than an organ of Soviet propaganda if its products were to be available domestically.[14] The Act was amended to read: "no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States" (P.L. 99-93). At least one court interpreted this language to mean USIA products were to be exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. In response, the Act was amended again in 1990 to permit domestic distribution of program material "12 years after the initial dissemination" abroad (P.L. 101-246 Sec 202).

**The second and third provisions were of greater interest to the Congress as they answered critical concerns about government engaging domestic audiences. ** Added to the Bloom Bill, the predecessor to the Smith-Mundt Bill in June 1946 by Representative John M. Vorys (R-OH) "to remove the stigma of propaganda" and address the principal objections to the information activities the Congress intended to authorize. These provisions remain unamended and were the real prophylactic to address concerns the U.S. Government would create Nazi-style propaganda or resurrect President Wilson's CPI-style activities. The amendment said the information activities should only be conducted if needed to supplement international information dissemination of private agencies; that the State Department was not to acquire a monopoly of broadcasting or any other information medium; and that private sector leaders should be invited to review and advise the State Department in this work.

Section 1437 of the Act requires the State Department to maximize its use of "private agencies." Section 1462 requires "reducing Government information activities whenever corresponding private information dissemination is found to be adequate" and prohibits the State Department from having monopoly in any "medium of information" (a prescient phrase). Combined, these provide not only protection against government's domination of domestic discourse, but a "sunset clause" for governmental activities that Rep. Karl Mundt (R-SD) and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs William Benton stated clearly: as private media stood up, government media would stand down.

推特治国真有问题，怎么这四年都没一个政敌提出这点？？你比美国那些法律专家更懂？？

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/donald-trump-facebook-social-media-capitol-attack

Grygiel cited the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which regulates the distribution of government propaganda, as an example of one law that limits the government’s communication. But such regulation does not exist for the president’s Twitter account, Grygiel said. Instead we have relied on the assumption the president would not use his social media account to incite an insurrection.

Grygiel said it was time to move away from the idea that a president should be tweeting at all. Adam Mosseri, head of Facebook’s subsidiary Instagram, said on Twitter on Thursday evening that Facebook has long said it believes “regulation around harmful content would be a good thing”. He acknowledged that Facebook “cannot tackle harmful content without considering those in power as a potential source”.

Grygiel said: “We need non-partisan work here. We need legislation that ensures no future president can ever propagandize the American people in this way again.”

总之这位教授和我的观点差不多。他认为，Smith-Mundt Act用于限制政府的宣传洗脑，但是目前没有直接规范总统行为的法律，川普属于钻法律漏洞，将来会有相关法律出台。

但我和他不同的看法是，川普公私不分，在使用私人账户发推并使用官方账户转发时，应该视作以总统的身份对外喊话。那么，他的发推宣传应当视作政府行为，同样受到Smith-Mundt Act的限制。

贺卫方教授也有类似观点，见第四条：

@虫文门 #121647 這位朋友請不要口出惡言，這樣不是辯論應有的態度。

我基本認同po主的觀點，但是實踐中這樣會不會使得政客失去與民眾的溝通渠道？推特這類社交網路，對於提升治理水平會有正面作用。關鍵還是在於對政客本身行為的約束，制止濫用行為。全面禁止政客使用私人推特似乎也會帶來副作用。

說川普發推是「政治宣傳」這我實在難以苟同

1，川普建推特帳號可曾有直接調用過政府資源？voa和cctv可都是吃皇糧的，川普發推難道還能從政府預算裡拿錢？

2，川普作為公民本身就有發帖的權利

3，既然你都對標cctv了，那我想問川普發推推特想封就封，cctv發文可有人敢封嗎？

@太陽三觀測站 #121723

1. 宣传和是否拿钱没有逻辑上的因果关系，否则也不会有“自干五”了。
2. 川普只要拿@POTUS帐号转他自己的推，那么他就代表美国政府，不是普通公民。
3. 贵国有中宣部，美国没有，这就是本质上的区别。

@Ambulance #121724 1，我不太清楚你為什麼會這麼認為，在我看來只要沒有用納稅人的錢那其性質就和一般人發表政見差不了太多，無論其身分。而一般人顯然是有發表政見的權力的。套用在網評員-自乾五的關係上就是，同樣是歌頌政府，前者是政治宣傳，後者不是，因為前者領政府的錢，而後者沒有。

2，你這麼說也有道理，我有空會去查一下川普的推特是不是這個關係，不過推特本身畢竟不是官辦，感覺上是不太像是政府機關的。

3，是，這也是我為什麼不能理解你為什麼要去對標cctv，你顯然是清楚這兩者不是一回事的。

@太陽三觀測站 #121725 关于3我解释一下，美国政府不允许自建媒体对内广播的原因是，因为政府控制的媒体一定会不可避免变成自己的宣传工具，就好像CCTV的功能一样。你说：“川普發推推特想封就封，cctv發文可有人敢封嗎”，其实并没有指出我论点哪里有错，相反证明了，正因为美国不是中共国，推特才敢于挑战总统。当然，如果继续发展下去，推特没有办法封川普的帐号，那么大概就会变成你所说的情况。

“只有收钱有政府支持的才是宣传，其它不算”，这个观点十分有趣。

propaganda

noun 1.information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

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

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.[1] Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda.

@Ambulance #121726

川普發推推特想封就封，cctv發文可有人敢封嗎

我之所以這麼說主要是想表述，既然政府官員的推特可以被挑戰，那就算不上cctv式的宣傳工具，也就暫時沒有必要就政客是否應該使用推特作更多的限制。而且比起這個我更擔心未來會有一個壟斷一切的數字巨頭隨意以其喜好審查言論。

關於政治宣傳，確實單就其詞義來講它並不一定就是要政府支持/買單才算宣傳，但是個人發表的觀點/宣傳即便具有誤導性也是應當受保護的（而如我剛才所說我認為只要不領錢那政客在推特上吹水和一般個人並無什麼區別），就像自乾五同樣也可以享有言論自由一樣。當然這個保護的邊界應該畫在哪裡是一個值得討論的議題，但這並不意味著就應該像你所說直接禁止政府官員在推特上發表個人意見。

總的來說，我認為政府本身不應用納稅人的錢來塑造公共輿論。但個人有其發表觀點乃至『政治宣傳』的權力，而只要他的言論不是受政府資助的，即便是政府官員也包括在內。