Did the WSJ wink?

Its advice that people shouldn't be allowed to mask up on the street "while terrorizing others and flouting the law" might have more than one meaning.

The WSJ opinion section ran a piece the other day that argued for enacting bans on masking by protesters. I’m fascinated by the paper’s choice of photo and text in promoting the piece on social media.

For a piece about street protesters engaged in violence while escaping legal accountability through disguise, I’d have expected a picture from Portland, Ore. of black bloc anarchists in balaclavas menacing overmatched local cops or something like that. This isn’t! It looks like your retired uncle and aunt facing off against a line of armed, intimidating police who are themselves very much masked.

Uncle and auntie are clad in distinctive, identifiable clothes and eyeglasses that look like their own, and masks that look to me medical rather than optimized for identity concealment. A fog in the air suggests irritant gas -- another reason to wear a mask that is unrelated to disguise.

Then comes the WSJ’s text: “Americans have every right to protest their government, but not to do so anonymously while terrorizing others and flouting the law.” Yes! An activity otherwise lawful can cease to be so if done “anonymously while terrorizing others and flouting the law.” Hold that thought!

The writers of the underlying piece aren’t the ones who craft social media blurbs. What if some brilliant WSJ social media creator were subtly conveying the idea that these arguments might also extend to… the police themselves? After all, by far the most prominent assemblage of street toughs presently terrorizing others and flouting the law from behind masks are ICE and its partner agencies.

I know, unlikely. But it’s fun to think about.