> I feel like you're identifying two distinct issues here - preventing you from commenting on posts, and preventing you from seeing them at all. The second iss

> I feel like you're identifying two distinct issues here - preventing you from commenting on posts, and preventing you from seeing them at all. The second issue you mentioned is part of a broader legal issue about the degree to which the government burdens access to the government's speech. The question is not just "can you still access the speech through legal means?" but also "how difficult did the government make it for you to access the speech?" If you get blocked then you don't see the posts unless you're logged out. This is due to the platform's implementation of blocking, but there it doesn't eliminate the First Amendment question about whether you can see the post. In order to know that a government official made a particular post you would have to periodically visit the government official's account page while logged out. If you weren't blocked you could have gotten notifications sent to wherever, or you could've watched your own feed at your leisure without having to check the official's account page like a hawk. By blocking you under these conditions, the government official would place a significant burden on your access to the speech (a First Amendment violation), even if the prohibition on access is not a complete block.