Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.
It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.
This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.
So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.
Also notice that EFF winning this lawsuit will not compel all gov't users to disavow the block feature, because not all forms of gov't communications come with the same free speech obligations. The 1st amendment has different ramifications depending on the purpose of the forum; e.g., the rules for:
* NOAA emergency announcements,
* national park service informational billboards, and
* city council Q&A sessions
That's a completely different situation than what the OP is talking about, which is public officials acting and communicating in their given public roles. It's illegal as hell to spend government resources on campaign purposes. That's why officials have separate websites for their public office and for their campaign:
Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private property.
FTA: The medium of communication, whether it’s online, television, radio, print, or bullhorn—isn’t the issue
I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable users to block other users and it's really not the government's business.
Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.