Schweppe's tweet came in response to Noem's push for the state legislature to pass a bill that would prevent transgender women from competing in women's sports on both the K-12 and collegiate levels, according to a press release from the APP.
Earlier this year, Arkansas passed legislation that would outlaw the use of experimental genital mutilation procedures and hormone treatment for individuals under the age of 18, the Federalist reported.
The APP announced Schweppe's Twitter suspension Wednesday, taking screenshots of the platform's announcement that Schweppe's tweet had violated the platform's rules of use.
"BREAKING: APP Director of Policy and Government Affairs @JonSchweppe had his Twitter account temporarily suspended. For what exactly? Calling on governors to ban the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children," APP tweeted.
Twitter claimed that Schweppe violated the rules regarding "hateful conduct."
The rules state that an individual on Twitter may not "promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease."
Schweppe appealed his suspension; however, Twitter denied his request, determining that he had committed a violation of the platform's rules.
The APP posted a screenshot of Twitter's denial of Schweppe's appeal to restore his account and asked if Twitter supported the chemical castration of children in response to the platform's refusal to restore his account.
Schweppe has voiced his support for a legislative solution to Big Tech censorship issues, outlining what he believes is a small-government solution to an assault on free speech.
Schweppe wrote an op-ed published in February in which he advocated for clearly defining the difference between an online publisher and a platform. He articulated that once these lines have been clearly defined, only publishers should be granted "special immunity from civil liability."
"The open forum is presenting itself as a digital version of the public square. The publisher is not, and therefore it is reasonable for it to assume some legal responsibility for its content," he wrote.