The act of putting oneself "in the shoes" of the other has perhaps solved more disputes than any other strategy in human history. This classic empathy-promoting practice encourages the individual to consider the "golden rule" — "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12) — as it pertains to a particular circumstance involving a specific person.

In this spirit, I would simply consider my progressive brothers and sisters (of which I am proud to have many) to consider what their reaction would be to the following tweet from the New York Times:

"Breaking News: A judge limited Trump administration officials from contacting social media sites, a ruling that could curtail efforts to fight disinformation."

Indeed, my progressive friends would repel in horror if they learned that Trump had been attempting to censor political opposition, and justifiably so. The mere notion of former President Donald Trump working behind the scenes to suppress speech is enough to make anyone’s skin crawl.

Of course, this tweet is imaginary. But the real tweet upon which it is based, which is among the most despicable utterances of 21st century American journalism, only differs in that it swaps out "Trump" for "Biden." The details of the Biden administration’s attempts to suppress speech, as spelled out in Judge Terry Doughty’s landmark Missouri v. Biden decision this week, would doubtless drive my progressive friends to the brink of suicide if they had been carried out by Trump.

Imagine the horror they’d feel upon learning that Trump officials threatened Facebook with legal consequences should they not acquiesce to demands; that the censorship efforts " almost exclusively " targeted progressive speech online, which ranged in topic from politics, foreign policy, and scientific debates; or that, through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency the Trump administration sought to control our "cognitive infrastructure" by stopping the spread of false and misleading information (according to them). And yet, when the Biden administration does exactly what I’ve detailed above, they barely bat an eye.

Now, there would be among my progressive friends those who’d be tempted to defend the Orwellian strangeness of the Biden administration by appealing to the special circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, around which much of the censorship efforts revolved. The genuine concern over the accuracy of information created an atmosphere that necessitated government oversight of information to at least some degree.

This view is dubious on its face, and it certainly doesn’t stand in hindsight. As Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the plaintiffs in Missouri, correctly noted on television Wednesday night: "Censorship kills because it locks in bad ideas." The fearful atmosphere during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the ascendance of cancel culture in 2020, had a chilling effect on public discourse that led to the implementation of bad ideas that made the U.S.’s pandemic response one of the least successful in the world.

Take, for instance, the efforts of Chief Medical Adviser to the President Dr. Anthony Fauci to censor the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration. That was a statement signed by many thousands of infectious disease experts and public health scientists that criticized the policy of lockdowns. Fauci's action prevented a robust public discussion between experts and led to a disaster in various sectors, including education, mental health, and the economy — all without reducing the number of COVID-related deaths in any meaningful way. Further, the evidence now supports skeptics of COVID policy as it relates to the efficacy of masking as a public policy and the ability of vaccines to "stop the spread."

The "cognitive infrastructure" as laid by the Biden policy was flimsy at best and scandalously wrong at worst. They, like all administrations before them, have no business controlling what the public is allowed to think and say. As such, Missouri is a cause for celebration. It allows the government to continue to make its case about what it believes to be true without muzzling political opposition.

This decision will serve to protect the political interests of all, including those of my progressive friends, as information technology continues to develop in new and unforeseen ways.

Peter Laffin is a contributor at the Washington Examiner and the founder of Crush the College Essay. His work has also appeared in RealClearPolitics, the Catholic Thing, the National Catholic Register, and the American Spectator.