"It wasn’t a “dog whistle”. It was a direct reply to ‘but Trump’."

The term some far left anti-white racist isn’t a realistic one. Not by a mile. Take it from someone who actually knows what "far left" is – you hardly have any of those across the pond to begin with. And left-wing racist is a bit of an oxymoron as well.

See, it’s a bit hard to commit to the philosophy where individualism takes a back step to the common good and simultaneously insist there’s a demographic which is lesser.

Racism is inherently the natural domain of the far right and the centrists. The more left you go the less likely you are to be able to justify discrimination based on race or ethnicity. No, the left has other natural drawbacks, prejudices and flaws they fall for…but racism isn’t one of them. Leftie bigotry is easy to discern – find whoever makes possession of wealth itself an automatic target of prejudice.

If the extreme right is predisposed to finding scapegoats in races, ethnicity, origin and religion, the extreme left is predisposed to finding their scapegoats among the wealthy.
And that’s more ideological than it is the simple desire to look down on someone else, the way LBJ described it. No, with the extreme left it’s pure Marx where they insist that any beneficiary of an unethical system is part of the problem and needs removal. But this can not justify prejudice based on ethnicity.

(That’s also, incidentally, how you can tell China’s never been communist. No actual communist can justify celebrating "the working class, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie" as China does on it’s national flag.)

On a tangent here, one problem the US really has is the willingness to conflate words which have distinct meaning. Liberals, for instance, aren’t by default leftist. THAT is a conflation conservatives lacking actual policy tried to make to nail progressives to the communist scare of Hoover and McCarthy. And then confuse the issue until the current situation, where the average MAGA hat wearer has no clue about anything except that, apparently, liberals are governed by lizard people who eat babies.

Your problem right here is that with your oft-stated belief republicans are the lesser evil compared to democrats people will read into your assertions statements which may or may not be there. The average Trump voter, after all, is exemplified by wilful ignorance, malicious hatred, fear of the other…and there will always be judgment based on the company you keep.

"I draw a line between official government service and using private service for government-related use. "

I honestly don’t see why. I mean sure, there’s an overlap. But as #45’s day in court showed there’s a problem when a government employee starts to primarily use unofficial channels to pound out their message to the voters. It may not be kind to deny a politician the same discretionary power people not in government service have but…there’s literally no other way.

That all said the real idiocy by Massie here is that although the courts are clear blocking someone from his channel should be a no-go, no one said anything about muting.

"Both parties have small but militant extremes. Small groups of armed people bent of violence. "

They really don’t. You’re just tossing half a dozen very different factions into the pot there and calling it soup. At least take the boot and the rusty nails out before you serve it, kay? Those don’t belong.

Liberals and progressives don’t have militias. They, after all, are the ones who keep believing everything can be settled in debate. They don’t have training camps, armed militias, or large groups of the confused, ignorant and angry fully convinced the illuminati and/or the elders of zion are running the nation.

The actual socialists in existence in the US? They do have armed people – look up the SRA (Socialists Rifle Association) or Redneck Revolt – but those are normally almost as hostile to liberals and progressives as they are to right-wingers. The people who took Marx’s call for armed civilians to heart, as it were. What those do not have is political representation. You won’t find them under even the democrat big tent.

And then you have the wingnuts – Nation Of Islam and similar organizations. I’ll grant you, that one is as racist as racist gets. Which might be why civil rights organizations brand it a hate group. Those are, however, hard to take any more seriously than the scientologists. I mean, once they start talking about God descending on a UFO to wipe out the Big Bad and lift the Chosen to safety then you’re just talking about another iteration of some abrahamic doomsday cult. I put their limits of organized action between rifles and water towers, honestly.

This leaves us with the far right. And looking at the FBI’s repeated warnings about the far right being the single greatest internal threat…they’re not saying that for no reason. Putting whatever armed leftist we can find on one side of the scale and right wing militants on the other the balance looks like you tried to weigh the Weisse Rose against the Wehrmacht. Just another way you really can’t make a "both sides" argument – it’s so lopsided it’s ridiculous. Pee-wee doesn’t belong in the ring with Mike Tyson.

"This ruling just gave them a safe-space of sorts to monitor and track with impunity. "

Fixed that for you. What the ruling referred to says is that blocking access to communications isn’t allowed where said communications can be considered governmental. Twitter does, however, have a Mute button as well and I don’t think the ruling covers that.
I mean, it shouldn’t. Even in a public meeting there’s ample precedent that the heckler or the disruptive can be ushered out. But barring them from attendance or quietly partaking? That’s where I draw the line.

Which brings us to the TL;DR?

No, an injunction against a government entity blocking attendance is not really a problem. If the injunction referred to muting attendees I’d see a problem here. But there’s a world of difference between those two options.