If you’re going to dish it out, then you should be able to take it.

How many times have we heard that?

Well someone should get that message across to our President Trump.

At the moment there’s a controversy and maybe even potential legal strategies being designed to counter his blocking of tweets.

As we know, Trump loves to tweet and often has very caustic commentary included.  However, for those who would respond in what must be considered officials statements and a public forum, the president blocks some of those rebuttals as well as access to his tweets.

Is it right? Is it legal? Is it fair.

A constitutional purest would say that Trump has the right to speak to anyone he wants and to not listen to anyone he wants. That’s reading between the lines of the First Amendment. Technically, that’s probably correct.

However, it would seem that someone who stands behind such a bully pulpit would have the starch to hear responses, especially when some consider him the leader of the free world. It boils down to a matter of integrity in the venue of a public forum.

Of course those who disagree have the ability and the avenues to respond to his tweets in other venues, though perhaps more indirect and less seen.

Many, even from his own party, have criticized Trump for his caustic use of Twitter. They say it’s simply not presidential. They make a good point. The tweets sound more like a schoolyard kid who didn’t get his way, and he’s going to ‘tell on someone.’

A legal challenge to his blocking of tweets likely won’t succeed. And perhaps they shouldn’t in that purest sense. But in a sense of fairness, the idea of embracing what’s right and not just what’s legal should prevail in this case where such statements are considered official.