For some actual informed analysis:
I agree with the last paragraph, and I think this probably IS state action.
Do we know if those that tweet but have been blocked can still read the tweets from those that block them?
It doesn’t just require logging out?
I don’t know-that’s why I am asking those who might have been blocked, or know someone who has.
That makes sense. If it’s government property, all must have access, unless there is a compelling government interest to limit certain people. If it’s Trump’s personal property, no problema.
Which is why the official declaration from the official press secretary that anything coming from that Twitter account is officially official makes me think there is a problem.
The press secretary cannot, by his utterance, transform a Twitter account created by Trump well before he became a candidate into an official government asset.
That’s prohibited by the Takings Clause. 
Yes, they would have to log out of their Twitter account though, and then they can access it just like I do without a Twitter account.
The question that comes to mind is… why block anyone at all then? Does DT understand how this works? I don’t have twitter so I wouldn’t know.
The main purpose of blocking is to stop the other person from interacting with you. For example, if someone else is harassing you, you block them so you don’t see it, and they can no longer directly reply to your tweets.
I believe the Trump blocks are aimed at stopping people from using the tweets to promote their own agenda in the replies, not stopping them from seeing the tweets.
Thanks for the clarification.
I obviously have no idea if President Trump knows, but given that he’s an avid Twitter user and neither of us are, there’s a good chance that he knows a lot more about how it works than both of us combined. As for why, as a non-Twitterer myself, I can only hazard a guess: I think he does it to keep the tweets of those people from showing up in his Twitter timeline. Imagine someone who replied to every Donald Trump tweet with something like “F*** YOU orange Cheeto!”. By blocking that person, it’s my outsiders’ understanding that he no longer sees that annoying reply to his tweets.
Considering how easy it is to read a twitter feed even if they blocked you (just log out of twitter, or open a private browser window), this seems pretty damn silly to me.
In a world of purity and reason, I would say that the First Amendment would prevent the Executive from acting to deny peaceable protest in even the smallest of forms. In that world, banning people on Twitter would not be excusable.
In the real world, even Donald Trump deserves time to sleep, to relax and unwind, etc. and so to be able to choose whether he is interested in engaging with any particular member of the public or not. It would be better if he simple blocked his own view of the person, but if Twitter doesn’t allow such a thing, I’m not too fussed by this minimal transgression of or civil rights. This doesn’t feel like the entry point to a snowballing effect on our abilities to criticize the government.
The complaint that he is deleting specific tweets is a greater issue, and even there it probably doesn’t matter because the information is almost certainly attainable via some means.
Does the press secretary have the authority to make something “official”? Suppose, during arguments before the court, Trump were to declare that Spicey was never authorized to say that.
Judging by his physique, I doubt “healthy” is very high on his agenda, either physical or mental.
Imagination is fun to play with sometimes, but who is he actually banning, and for what kinds of tweets?
Here is a Washington Post article on what it takes to get banned from his account, and apparently it doesn’t take much.
BTW, here is a brand new article on this subject from Wired magazine.
Do you believe that statements uttered by the White House Press Secretary are legally binding?
The President uses Twitter?
Gosh, this is the first I’ve heard of it. I think my First Amendment rights are being violated if I and every other American isn’t automatically given a Twitter account, so we can immediately access all his twits.
I think that if The President’s Own Press Secretary was saying something that wasn’t factually correct as far as the White House is concerned, they wouldn’t be letting him say it during press conferences at the White House. I don’t know what standard you are looking for before we can start considering an issued statement to be official-maybe White house lawyers giving sworn testimony before Congress itself?