> temporarily blocking a critic from her Facebook page, a decision that could affect President Donald Trump’s appeal from a similar ruling in New York.
I would expect Trump's lawyers to point out that blocking on Twitter does not block access to information, as blocking on Facebook does. On Twitter, you can see every public tweet if you aren't logged in. On Facebook, many/most posts are not marked Public and so you have to be logged in (and sufficiently linked to the poster) to view them.
Of course, there's still the issue of the inability to reply to the comment and engage with the poster on Twitter, but IMO (as a former lawyer) the bigger issue is access to information, which is less restricted via Twitter blocks than FB blocks.
> Of course, there's still the issue of the inability to reply to the comment and engage with the poster on Twitter, but IMO (as a former lawyer) the bigger issue is access to information,
No, the protection against viewpoint discrimination in public fora is about the right to be heard in the context of the forum, more than access to information (it prevents the public forum from being a Potemkin village that serves as propaganda for the office holder rather than, well, a public forum.)
So, inability to reply would still involve the core problem that the protections is aimed at.
> Of course, there's still the issue of the inability to reply to the comment and engage with the poster on Twitter
I wouldn't dismiss that as a small issue, given the First Amendment explicitly protects the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
> But while the member office is under no obligation to listen to any communications, they can’t tell people that they can’t communicate with their elected official.
> In 2006, a woman in Colorado left a package full of dog feces in the mailbox of an office of Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. She was charged with using a noxious substance — but her lawyers argued that she had a First Amendment right, and that it was protected speech. She was found not guilty.
If you've got the First Amendment right to send your rep dog shit, you've got the right to tweet at them.
If you are "verified" on twitter and your profile information calls you out as public official then your twitter account is no longer just your personal play pen, it's an official means of public communication. This is a choice. You don't have to have a verified account, you don't have to put your political position in your twitter bio.
I would expect Trump's lawyers to point out that blocking on Twitter does not block access to information, as blocking on Facebook does. On Twitter, you can see every public tweet if you aren't logged in. On Facebook, many/most posts are not marked Public and so you have to be logged in (and sufficiently linked to the poster) to view them.
Of course, there's still the issue of the inability to reply to the comment and engage with the poster on Twitter, but IMO (as a former lawyer) the bigger issue is access to information, which is less restricted via Twitter blocks than FB blocks.