My article doesn't imply this. In fact, the very beginning agrees there have been clear cases of censorship in the US. Then other remarks I make about the legal and historical understandings of free speech, the First Amendment, etc. actually imply the opposite of what you're claiming is implied, since there would have to be real violations of free speech just as there are distortions of it.
The notion that free speech is under attack is often an extremist one used to guard one's own opinions from criticism or consequences. That's what I'm focused on discussing in this article, not disproving the notion as a whole. The context should give this away.
As for AOC and the bill you mention, so far the only thing I've seen her do is suggest a commission to "rein in" disinformation in the media. Now I do think this has the risk of infringing on free speech, but I think what's telling is that she's yet to introduce a bill, no commission has been formed, and this is really just an expression of *her* free speech at this point - saying she wants to see tech companies held accountable (hmmm, isn't that what Trump supporters are saying, too?) - but the right and conservative media are treating it as if it's already an evil coordinated conspiracy to undermine free speech. I don't think that's what AOC has in mind, nor do I think she's going to get the support she wants for something like that, which is evident already from the backlash.
When we cite these partisan examples that raise questions about free speech, I believe it's important to put that into a broader context, too. If it's an attack on free speech, it's implied that someone or some group is responsible for leading the attack. Yet there are plenty of clear instances where the right has gone after protesters, such as Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Texas passing laws to criminalize environmentalist protests of gas and oil companies (Source: https://www.gq.com/story/criminalizing-pipeline-protests) There are the same kinds of ambiguities here as in the issue with AOC and her commission on disinformation.
The reality is that you could've chosen almost any example to illustrate how free speech is "under attack," but you picked one of the favorite recent talking points from the right. The fact that this favors a particular narrative about who's responsible for suppressing free speech is precisely what I'm getting at in this article. Yes, there is suppression of free speech, but no, it's certainly not a partisan issue and should not be seen as one. Or else it does have that tendency to become a security blanket (or battering ram) for one side rather than a genuine call to protect our constitutionally-given rights and liberties.
