If the President would act presidential (or even professional) instead of trying to shut down discussion and dissent, this wouldn't be an issue.

As for the case itself, Sean Spicer quite clearly said that the President's statements on Twitter, when referencing a tweet from Trump's personal Twitter, are "official statements by the president of the United States." The article mentions that. Those are an open record. If he chooses to use a private platform to present public information, then the public needs access to it. According to Twitter's page (https://support.twitter.com/articles/117063), blocked accounts cannot "view your tweets when logged in on Twitter" or "find your tweets in search when logged in on Twitter," which is great, unless you're the President of the United States and you're giving your official Presidential to-the-public statements on Twitter.

This will have absolutely no bearing on internet or "internal" (not the right word in this context) law because none of us are the President of the United States whose administration has said that our personal Twitter account is official in any capacity. Put your pants back on, James.

We've discussed this in another thread before, the first amendment does not apply to private individuals/groups, which Twitter is. Nobody has a right to post on Twitter. This lawsuit is a waste of tax payer money.

just checking it out guys, i hadn't followed the story in a while and i was surprised to see it was going to court

and @bo my pants are now firmly attached to my body