[beager]

I wonder if the decision comes down to that some people have the ability to be a part of the conversation on Twitter, but not the people that Trump has blocked, and therefore that's considered unequal treatment.

To follow your analogy, nobody can post their podcast on the White House's website. If Donald Trump somehow had replies completely turned off for his Twitter, I don't think a case could be made that first amendment rights were being infringed.

[bumholio]

Well, that discrimination exists on the current White House site. I just went there and on the front page I found this article, that quotes some people friendly to Trump's policies, many of them (ironically) sourced from tweets:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/wtas-support...

So why should these people be cited, but not others critical to the administration? Who gets to make that decision, and why can't they make a similar decision on Twitter itself?

[MrStonedOne]

The white house's website, (and more particularly, a section dedicated to publishing official statements) is not a public forum.

The comment section of tweets is. And how government entities engage in public forums is regulated by the constitution and case law. Excluding people for previous expressions of their first amendment rights violates the first amendment in two rights, as it punishes the citizen for how they exercised their 1st amendment rights, in a way that further limits their 1st amendment rights.

This is akin to town halls ran by the government in private buildings. The building owner can surely exclude you because they don't like what you say, but the government can not.

[bumholio]

So if mr. Trump declares his Twitter account "not a public forum, but a section dedicated to publishing official supportive replies, that by default publishes all replies and selectively deletes those who aren't supportive", will that make things ok?

It's not like a town hall because there is no official charter for what the realDonalTrump Twitter is. It seems some people want to enforce their view that it's a public forum, while clearly violating mr. Trump's own 1st amendment rights by forcing him to promote on his Twitter page content that is damaging to him.

The "on his Twitter page" distinction is critical, because you can still use the wider Twitter public forum as before, and you can engage in the wider conversation, you just don't have the same visibility to his followers. You were evicted form a personal performance of the President juggling pink dildos.

[FireBeyond]

He's the one that brought this on himself. His ego wanted the follower count on his personal account, and the White House itself has decreed that his personal account can be considered "official communications".

Let's not make this out to be people forcing him to act a certain way. He could easily have avoided this.

[lovehashbrowns]

The comments section below each of his tweets does act as a sort of town hall. The point of this is that anyone should be able to reply to his tweets and participate in the public discourse that happens there.

[foobarchu]

I'd say the difference is that Whitehouse.com is granting it on an individual basis, as a whitelist. On Twitter, Trump is himself picking and choosing who to blacklist. It's ok to only allow some people to join the conversation, it's not ok to selectively say "no, you CANT join" due to personal disagreements.

Juvenile comparison, but it's like how school teachers won't usually let kids give out birthday invites in class unless they give one to everybody, because otherwise you get just the unpopular kids being selectively disinvited. Yet those kids are allowed to give those invites outside the classroom/public forum