The most patriotic fireworks yesterday are from a federal judge whose ruling halting President Biden’s online censorship program will spark debate about Democrats using the cudgel of “disinformation” to stifle free speech. The ruling, in which the judge compared Mr. Biden’s effort to Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth,” notes fears that “the government has used its power to silence the opposition.” It would have outraged the American Framers.The First Amendment, barring the federal government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” is front and center in Judge Terry Doughty’s ruling. The “indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom,” he calls these liberties. He reckons Mr. Biden’s “attempts to suppress alleged disinformation” on social-media sites apparently set off “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Hyperbole — if there is any — aside, the concern in the case couldn’t be more critical, especially with a presidential election looming: the suppression, by a combination of private and public actors, of “conservative-leaning free speech.” The suit contends that federal officials influenced — and even threatened — “social-media” firms “to induce them to censor disfavored speech and speakers.” The government’s censorship, Judge Doughty says, “targeted conservative speech.” Take, say, the suppression of “the Hunter Biden laptop story,” he writes, which could have influenced the outcome of the 2020 election, or social-media firms “suppressing negative posts about the economy,” or “about President Biden.” Disputes over Covid’s origins and the efficacy of masks were also subject to de facto censorship by the Biden White House, the suit contends.Judge Doughty concedes the “case is still relatively young,” yet he notes that “the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.” During the pandemic, he observes, the federal government “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” That, he writes, means an agency “responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception.”Judge Doughty’s ruling, a preliminary injunction, puts but a temporary halt to Mr. Biden’s censorship campaign. It bars federal officials even from contacting social-media firms about most of the content on their platforms, except for crime or security threats. Mr. Biden hasn’t yet said if he will appeal, but the New York Times is already fretting that the ruling “could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives.” Like the ones presented in …. the Times, one might quip. For a glimpse of a “misleading narrative,” feature how the Times spins its wheels to try to get Mr. Biden more credit for the state of the economy. Paul Krugman sees a “remarkable turnaround” going on and wonders if the “narrative of Biden as a poor economic manager” has “become too deeply entrenched.” David Brooks similarly fears Mr. Biden isn’t getting due credit for the economy.Polls persist in showing “two-thirds of Americans believing the country/economy are headed in ‘the wrong direction,’” Stephen Moore notes in our columns, even if unemployment is low. We recently observed the perplexity of liberal scribes like the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, who is flummoxed that Mr. Biden’s poll ratings aren’t rising even though the “economy has done a lot better in the past year than most experts expected.”This puzzle has been solved by our Lawrence Kudlow, who knows “Americans are smarter than President Biden thinks they are.” As for the “cognitive dissonance” from Mr. Biden and his camarilla on the economy, he adds, “Americans see right through it.” Judge Doughty’s mention of Orwell’s “1984” calls to mind a scene in the novel when the protagonist, weary of the squalor brought about by “English Socialism,” hears a news bulletin on the “telescreen.”“Attention comrades,” the broadcast begins. “We have won the battle for production!” The report points to statistics showing “the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 percent over the past year” and adds that “spontaneous demonstrations” had broken out to celebrate. It was all untrue, yet, absent a free press, who was in a position to object? Under the regime in “1984,” Orwell writes, “the heresy of heresies was common sense.”
