As Trump has turned his Twitter account into a communication tool that he uses to reach his citizens, by banning certain users from accessing his content, he is keeping possibly vital statements from them, argues Eugene Gu for Fortune. Gu himself was banned by the president for posting critical tweets well within the realms of decency. Engaging in the Twitter response to the president’s words allows Americans to have a dialogue that is conducive towards democracy, getting to have their voices heard. Blocking citizens from this vital avenue of information limits Americans' essential rights to self-expression and unjustly excludes them.
The president blocking certain Twitter accounts because they were outrightly goading or insulting him is not a violation of the First Amendment, holds The Patriotic Post. Twitter is not covered by the Constitution, and blocking someone cannot be considered limiting free speech. Trump doing so with certain accounts is entirely within his right as a Twitter user and a citizen himself. Much of the content he removes from his feed is antagonistic and crude. Forcing him to see every single piece of online aggression cannot be considered Constitutional. The First Amendment allows everyone freedom of expression but doesn’t force others to listen.