The story began when Hochul decided it might be a good idea to get in touch with her inner authoritarian and try to force online platforms to police speech since that pesky First Amendment disallows the government to engage in such an undertaking. To this end, the state’s Marxist legislature passed a law with regulations that would govern how social media platforms handle certain types of speech.

The law required companies to “provide and maintain mechanisms for reporting hateful conduct” on their sites. The legislation defined “hateful conduct” as “the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of  persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

With this nebulous definition, it is not difficult to see why this piece of legislation might raise more than a few eyebrows, is it? Under this definition, and according to the Marxists who created it, any non-progressive opinion that one might post on Twitter or Facebook might be subject to this measure.

But luckily, a federal judge wasn’t buying what Hochul and her Marxist goons were selling. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, and online platforms Rumble and Locals sued New York Attorney General Letitia James in December to strike down the law.

Judge Andrew Carter of New York’s Southern District issued a preliminary injunction against the law, arguing that its provisions were unconstitutional. He noted that regulating supposed hate speech is “particularly onerous for Plaintiffs, whose websites have dedicated pro-free speech purpose[s]” and pointed out that the law “is clearly aimed at regulating speech.” Carter also ruled that the measure “chills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users,” which is a violation of the First Amendment.

The judge also took issue with the ambiguous language in the legislation, saying that terms like “vilify” and “humiliate” are broad enough to have a deleterious impact on freedom of expression. “For example, could a post using the hashtag ‘BlackLivesMatter’ or ‘BlueLivesMatter’ be considered ‘hateful conduct’ under the law? Likewise, could social media posts expressing anti-American views be considered conduct that humiliates or vilifies a group based on national origin?” he wrote.

This is a welcome development in that it is a clear repudiation of New York’s attempt to curtail freedom of expression online. Judge Carter made the right call in this matter, and it’s good that this did not require a long and protracted fight in court – so far.

The past decade has made it clear that the authoritarian left would love nothing more than to use whatever means necessary – including the power of the state – to prevent its enemies from expressing anti-left views on social media platforms. They love to employ popular bromides about protecting “marginalized groups” and addressing “hateful conduct” to make their authoritarianism seem palatable to the masses, very few of which want to see people being oppressed.

But behind their façade of virtue lies an ardent desire to maintain supremacy over as many methods of communication as possible. This is the impetus behind New York’s anti-free speech law, not a desire to protect vulnerable Americans. Fortunately, for the time being, the state will not be able to encroach on one of the most sacred of our natural rights.