I'm not American so I wasn't aware of the legal battle, or the precise law, but I agree with this statement from the article
""By ignoring the critical distinction between the president’s (sometimes) official statements on Twitter and his always personal decision to block respondents from his own account, the opinion blurs the line between state action and private conduct," Wall said in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case."
The role of the presidential office and the private citizen Trump should not be treated as synonymous. Of course Trump is probably the worst particular case here because he blurs the line intentionally. For the reason outlined in the argument Trump ought to communicate through official channels and users on twitter should all be subject to the same rules. Or alternatively we acknowledge that Twitter is now the public square which means nobody gets to ban anyone else.
""By ignoring the critical distinction between the president’s (sometimes) official statements on Twitter and his always personal decision to block respondents from his own account, the opinion blurs the line between state action and private conduct," Wall said in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case."
The role of the presidential office and the private citizen Trump should not be treated as synonymous. Of course Trump is probably the worst particular case here because he blurs the line intentionally. For the reason outlined in the argument Trump ought to communicate through official channels and users on twitter should all be subject to the same rules. Or alternatively we acknowledge that Twitter is now the public square which means nobody gets to ban anyone else.