Content-based restrictions must pass strict scrutiny (my layman understanding is essentially: there must be a very good reason to restrict, and the law doesn't restrict any more than it absolutely has to), and it rarely passes the bar. Other kinds of restrictions can be illegal too, but the level of scrutiny is lower.
The government can publish official communications in video form, and say "please direct comments to <insert communications channel here>" rather than using the particular publishing platform's commenting system.
The thing the government cannot do is simultaneously use the publishing platform's comment system and block certain people, based on the content or viewpoint of their comments, from using that system.
This is how Trump got in hot water: he allowed some people to see and reply to his official communications (his administration has admitted that they see his Twitter account as an official communications channel used to make statements in his official capacity as the President) through Twitter's built-in mechanism, but not other people, and appeared to be making the choice based on the content or viewpoint of those people's comments.
> The thing the government cannot do is simultaneously use the publishing platform's comment system and block certain people, based on the content or viewpoint of their comments, from using that system.
Is that an opinion of fairness? Or an opinion of law? Or the opinion of a single judge? Or just your open musings?
The judge in this case stated that one of the crucial questions was, and I quote:
to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed
The judge reached an answer of "no" to that question.
You appear to be arguing either that the judge did not reach such an answer, or that the judge was answering a different question. Since I see no way for such an argument to be based on the available facts, I'm not sure what to do with you.
I haven't had a chance to read the full ruling, but it seems fairly obvious that if a government official designates a particular two-way communications channel as a place for communicating official statements (the Trump administration claims his Twitter account is such a channel), then the government official is subject to some restrictions on how that channel can be policed.
There was a case last year[1] where a federal judge in Virginia made a similar ruling after a politician banned someone from commenting on an official Facebook page due to not liking the opinions the commenter expressed.
And the general principle seems to be that the First Amendment does not allow government officials to silence their critics on an official communications channel; they can choose which channels to use, and refuse to open certain others, but once they set up such a communications channel they cannot discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of critics' speech in such channel. To do so implicates not just freedom of speech, but also the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances (i.e., if the government official bans you from the communication channels you'd use to state your grievances, how can you exercise that right?).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibition the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, petition the government for redress of grievances.
> it seems fairly obvious that if a government official designates a particular two-way communications channel
I would not be opposed to such a law. One way or another, the first amendment is clearly not that law.
So your approach to First Amendment issues is to disregard the history of judicial interpretation and application in favor of "this case didn't involve a law passed by Congress explicitly doing one of these things, so it doesn't apply".
Free speech is about free speech, not discriminating on content.
It is both illegal for the government to shut down leftist newspapers, and illegal for the government to shut down all newspapers.
The idiocy of this is making shutting down a newspaper equivalent to twitter blocking, but if you draw the analogy, that's what you wind up with.