Few things in life are as useless as the journalist who fears " unfettered conversations ."

If the thought of too many people speaking frightens you, then you are in the wrong line of work. You may be more comfortable in a government job.

A NEW REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE REFORM PLAN

On Tuesday, July 4, of all days, a federal judge imposed strict, albeit temporary, limits barring federal officials from coordinating with social media companies to censor certain online speech.

The injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, who was appointed by the U.S. Senate in 2018 by a vote of 98-0, is a response to a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri. The lawsuit alleges federal bureaucrats violated the First Amendment when they “recommended” that tech firms limit or block certain content, including stories about the infamous Hunter Biden laptop , criticisms of President Joe Biden , and stories suggesting the COVID-19 pandemic originated in a lab in Wuhan, China.

The judge’s injunction, which includes carve-outs for criminal activity and election mis- and disinformation, is a victory for free speech rights. But try telling that to certain members of our vaunted Fourth Estate. For these people, Doughty’s decision is a bad one. In fact, they say, the injunction poses a genuine risk to our core democracy.

"[T]his could be a huge blow to the White House's fight against misinformation about COVID vaccines, elections, and many other critical issues," opined CNN’s Poppy Harlow.

The New York Times agreed, warning in a news blurb that the ruling "could curtail efforts to fight disinformation." In its coverage of the injunction, the Times also dinged Doughty for supposedly spreading disinformation — except that the cited example is a true statement. The passage notes that Doughty "has previously expressed little skepticism about debunked claims from vaccine skeptics” and that in “one previous case, Judge Doughty accepted as fact the claim that 'Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent transmission of the disease.'"

That final bit there about vaccines is a true statement. Does the Times not know this? Is the Times spreading disinformation? Perhaps the federal government should step in to block this dangerous COVID-19 disinformation!

At CNN, senior legal analyst Elie Honig characterized Doughty's ruling as a "very activist judicial opinion.

"This is one of the most aggressive, far-reaching rulings you'll ever see,” Honig said. “What this judge is purporting to do is to micromanage, really, the day-to-day interactions between, essentially, the entire executive branch, all these agencies that are listed as defendants, and the leading social media companies."

Honig added, "Who's going to police this? This is a judge trying to micromanage the day-to-day regular activities of the entire executive branch. I don't know that it's actually policeable by the judge."

Spectrum News anchor and CNN contributor Errol Louis disagrees fundamentally with the ruling. For Louis, the feds haven’t done nearly enough to regulate social media.

"[W]hen it comes to actually talking to the companies, our government has done far too little. We have almost no regulation of these companies. And that is why and where the government, I think, does need to step up."

All over cable news, journalists cited anonymous sources who, coincidentally enough, agree that the ruling is dangerous.

"[The] legal experts I spoke to expect that this will have a major chilling effect on ongoing communications," the Washington Post’s Cat Zakrzewski warned during an appearance on MSNBC.

Added Politico’s Jonathan Lemire, "There's real concern with people I talked to the last couple of days about first of all misinformation on things like COVID or the next pandemic, whenever that might happen, but national security concerns as well, with election disinformation and the like.

"I've talked to current government officials who are very concerned about foreign interference or just deep fakes in the 2024 election," said NBC News national security editor David Rohde.

Anonymous experts all agree: It’s bad when the government’s powers are checked!

At MSNBC, Morning Joe host Mike Barnicle bloviated, "Would it be fair to look from a little bit, you know, 50,000 feet down on this ruling and other rulings like it, to make the claim or posit the theory that in a way, the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo and the former president, with his judicial appointments, have changed the course of the country's legal history, and in fact, has put a big handprint on the administration today, because of these judicial rulings?"

To the members of the press who believe it's dangerous to limit the state's ability to censor speech: What good are you? Truly, what useful purpose do you serve in your capacity as a card-carrying member of the free press? 

On second thought, perhaps there is a benefit to state censorship. One can see an upside to the feds censoring tired, tedious, and one-sided cable news commentary.

Let’s split the baby on this one: the federal bureaucrats who insist they must be allowed to block speech can still do it, but only for cable news commentary that all sounds the same.

Becket Adams is a columnist for the Washington Examiner, National Review, and the Hill. He is also the program director of the National Journalism Center.