Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. They usually don't get what they want, as they don't typically have the right to enforce their desires.
For example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-b...
> Rand Paul blasted Twitter on Tuesday for not immediately taking down Richard Marx’s tweet from Sunday in which he offered to buy drinks for the Kentucky neighbor who assaulted the Republican senator in 2017.
He can demand. They can say no. Both are First Amendment protected actions.
Sorry, but that just won't fly.
> A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."
In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r...
Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.
Blocking wasn't permissible because it restricted access by citizens to official announcements; it's like banning someone from coming to a town hall meeting or visiting Congress's website.
Trump was blocking those who replied to his comments with takes that were critical of himself or of his policies.
He was silencing critics.
It wasn't allowed.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Trump was only using his "personal" twitter during his presidency so the court considered it his de-facto presidential account.
