The WSJ, in that article, calls California's pandemic restrictions "The most sweeping restrictions on liberty ever seen", which is just an absurd assertion. Even if you scope it to the US or even California, where Japanese-American civilians, including children, were once relocated into internment camps.

This is why people tend to roll their eyes at the WSJ opinion section. (The journalism side, to be clear, is top-notch.)

> The WSJ, in that article, calls California's pandemic restrictions "The most sweeping restrictions on liberty ever seen", which is just an absurd assertion. Even if you scope it to the US or even California, where Japanese-American civilians, including children, were once relocated into internment camps.

Obviously the internment of Japanese folks during WWII was far more intrusive than the COVID restrictions. But that doesn't contradict the statement--they didn't say "the harshest restrictions" or "the most egregious restrictions", they said "the most sweeping restrictions". The word sweeping is an adjective meaning 'wide in range or effect'. It is simply a matter of fact that the COVID restrictions, which affected ~40 million people and resulted in the closure of 40,000 businesses, were a more sweeping restriction on liberty than the internment of 120,000 Japanese during the War.

If you wanna be that charitable towards the claim, you've still got to contend with the draft, wartime rationing, censorship during WWII, the Sedition Acts, and many others.

> You've still got to contend with the draft, wartime rationing, censorship during WWII, the Sedition Acts, and many others.

The only comparably broad measure you've listed is wartime rationing. But the fact that wartime rationing was as broad in scope as the COVID restrictions hardly renders the WSJ's claim absurd.

The draft permits the government to force any male citizen 17-45 into the military, where they lack significant Constitutional rights, can be sent to die in combat, and be summarily executed.

The Sedition Acts variably restricted the First Amendment rights to criticize the government of anyone in the country.

How are these not broad?

Yet all you have shown is that the WSG claim is debatable, not that it absurd.

Is it possible that you, like the WSG, enganged in a bit of hyperbole to tru to make a point?

No. California's restrictions haven't been "The most sweeping restrictions on liberty ever seen" no matter how charitably you approach and scope the claim. I entirely stand by my opinion that it's absurd to state that.

There exists entirely plausible interpretations of "sweeping" that place the california restrictions above the examples you cited. The draft only targeted males of specific ages, the sedition act removes a much "smaller" set of rights...etc

To be clear, I think the WSG claim is hyperbole. However it is a claim that could be reasonably argued to be correct and is thus not literally "absurd". Thus I would class is as hyperbolic and your use of the word as figurative.