A federal judge in California has blocked Democratic governor Gavin Newsom from arbitrarily punishing doctors who spread "misinformation" about the coronavirus pandemic.

Newsom's tyrannical law, now temporarily frozen, would strip medical licenses from doctors who share so-called "misinformation," but the judge took issue with Newsom's nebulous definition of the term.

Judge strikes Newsom down

The law was challenged by a group of five doctors who said it infringed on free speech. The judge took issue with Newsom's extraordinarily broad definition of "misinformation" as any advice that deviates from the "contemporary scientific consensus" on COVID-19.

Sacramento judge William Shubb noted the inherent difficulty of establishing a "consensus" on a "disease that scientists have only been studying for a few years, and about which scientific conclusions have been hotly contested."

"COVID-19 is a quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus," he wrote.

Follow the "science"

Indeed, the capricious and often confusing guidance dispensed by public health authorities since 2020 makes the very notion of a "contemporary scientific consensus" laughable.

Beyond being incredibly vague, Newsom's notion of a scientific "consensus" is misleading. The official "science" on COVID-19 has never reflected a true medical consensus, but rather the opinions of powerful, politically favored "experts" like Anthony Fauci.

Doctors and scientists who have gone against the so-called "science" have been censored and attacked. Then again, silencing doctors who go against the government was likely the point of Newsom's "misinformation" law in the first place.

The doctors who sued Newsom cited their fear of being punished for giving medically sound but unpopular advice to patients.

"In safeguarding Americans’ rights to free speech and expression, the First Amendment applies not only to expression of majority opinions, but to minority views as well," the complaint said.

Censorship regime

While Newsom's law has yet to receive a final judgment, the challengers are cautiously optimistic about the preliminary injunction.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented the doctors, called Newsom's ban a "blatant attempt to silence doctors whose views, though based on thorough scientific research, deviate from the government-approved 'party line.'"

"At no point has the State of California been able to articulate the line between permissible and impermissible speech," the group said.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr's Children's Health Defense, one of the plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit, said it was "proud to be a part of this groundbreaking litigation."