blocking someone isn't violating free speech at all unless it's censorship, which, even then it's questionable. in fact, it isn't because it's a loving twitter account and not a post on an official government website. want information on what your president is doing? watch the loving news.
these people trying to mix company policies with individual rights policies are handicaps because the company will always win. try to go to court with them and you're gonna get forgeted, it's that simple. anybody thinking otherwise is clueless and obviously hasn't studied business law for a minute of their life.
it has nothing to do with company policies or anything. boil it down to its simplest parts and social media is just a way for people to communicate; if you're using social media to disseminate public policy information and provide a platform for citizen response, then it's the same as any other similar means of communication like phone, letter, or in-person dialogue. because, in principle, it would be wrong (and unconstitutional) for politicians to selectively block people off from these methods of communication because of ideological disputes, it's wrong here too. the lines are just confusing and fuzzy because it's new territory, but if you just look at it in simple terms it's easier to understand how this logically follows. it's all about the relationship between politicians and their constituents, that's it
