The first amendment does not mean that anyone has to be forced to listen to you or agree with you.
The first amendment is more than just freedom of speech. It also contains the right to "petition the government". It is arguable that this requires that the government be forced to listen to (not agree with) you. If the twitter account is considered an official communication platform (per Spicer) then it MAY be that the President (or his designee) would be required to listen to people who communicate with it.
Secondly, the GPs statement was a hypothetical: IF the president was using the power of the government to prevent someone from posting on twitter at all then we would all agree that this violates freedom of speech.
--
JimFive
should I pay a living wage to the kid down he block to mow my lawn or rake leaves...or baby site my kid
You have a choice. You can pay a living wage or you can pay for the social safety net that subsidizes those jobs that pay less than a living wage. If a job does not pay enough for the workers to support themselves then that job is being subsidized in some manner. (How do I know: because the worker is alive.) You can pay the wage or pay the subsidy, but you will pay.
--
JimFive
We already have the ability to do all that anyway. Somebody forces you to use your phone to take a picture.
And after taking the picture, you spoil your ballot and take it to the election worker to get a new one and vote the way you want.
--
JimFive
Eureka! -- Archimedes