That's not the same thing. Celebrities are not elected officials representing constituents. Perhaps if someone is actually running for office it makes a difference, but I'm not sure when these sorts of laws kick in.

Ok, then does it apply to the aides to a congressman who are actually handling their twitter feeds who are not themselves writing the laws? Any way you sum it up, either Trump should be able to block people, or nobody should be able to block people.

Is it the account of the elected representative? Then yes, it would apply. It doesn't matter if it's a surrogate actually making the posts.

And I highly disagree with the "all or nothing" approach you've laid out. The biggest difference is that Trump is an elected official. Most people are not.

> Ok, then does it apply to the aides to a congressman who are actually handling their twitter feeds who are not themselves writing the laws?

If they are making posts with Trump's account or are making posts on their own account while acting in an official capacity then yes they are almost guaranteed to be subject to this ruling.

Government and government officials have to play to a higher standard than a private citizen. Their actions and statements need to be public so they can be held accountable by the citizens who elected them. That is part of the bedrock that makes democracy work.

It does not, because the First Amendment is a limit on government, and “public forum” in First Amendment case law refers to a space (including a virtual one) over which the government has ownership or control which is used by government for particular purposes. This is a case about (existing) limits on what government officials can do in venues government officials have set up for certain used.

Being a celebrity with loud political views is not the same thing as holding office.