I think the Reuter's article leaves off important context. In order to explain what the blocking accomplishes, they say:
> Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.
But I don't think that's the issue here. I believe that if an account blocks you, you can still read tweets from that account if it's public: just log out. I don't have a Twitter account and I routinely read public tweets. The real claim, I think, is that the blocked users' comment is removed from the timeline of responses. In that sense, it is censored speech, since the blocked user was removed from the conversation.
I haven't thought about this enough to know if I agree with that claim that this is a valid First Amendment claim. But if there is one, I think it has to do with being able to participate in the overall conversation, not just an individual being able to view certain tweets while logged in.
> Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.
But I don't think that's the issue here. I believe that if an account blocks you, you can still read tweets from that account if it's public: just log out. I don't have a Twitter account and I routinely read public tweets. The real claim, I think, is that the blocked users' comment is removed from the timeline of responses. In that sense, it is censored speech, since the blocked user was removed from the conversation.
I haven't thought about this enough to know if I agree with that claim that this is a valid First Amendment claim. But if there is one, I think it has to do with being able to participate in the overall conversation, not just an individual being able to view certain tweets while logged in.