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.
Where does the social media company's policy come into play? This isn't a case of Twitter or Facebook blocking people or removing accounts but the politicians themselves doing so.
Can you explain how a politician hosting a forum for solicitation using online social media is fundamentally different from an in person town hall event, and how blocking someone from participating online is different from not letting them in the room during the in person meeting?
This is an issue that goes beyond Annoying Orange's Twitter account; the court ruling was in regards to a local politician blocking one of their constituents on Facebook. It doesn't matter what medium you choose to engage with the public in you cannot block them from participating solely for providing criticism. If you use a private account to engage the public it should de facto escalate to public usage and be under the same scrutiny.
Why should the president care about media bullstuff
Despite your personal feelings about social media it is not going to disappear in the foreseeable future. It has been used as a means of communicating policy to the public for years now.
