Silenced as in, not given access to White House officials? Sorry but there is a difference between that and arresting people for things they say online.
Not given access to the White House, threatened by legal action and ousted from their journals [1]. Is that enough or should we only start to act when they get disappeared?
Also, I won't cry for the two 4chan basement dwellers from your article getting to face the consequences of their despicable actions. Sorry, our definition of free speech does not include harassment and flurries of racial slurs. Literally 1984, I know.
It is undeniable that European countries police speech more heavily than the US does. They have laws on the books that plainly give them this power. They exercise this power quite regularly. Feel free to argue that it is right for them to do so, but don't muddy the discussion attempting to redefine words.
Which words did I redefine? Our free speech doesn't include hate speech but it is still called free speech in our constitution. And it's boundaries are still clearly defined, just like yours.
Also, I don't feel like there's anything to argue, look where allowing rampant misinformation and lies proliferation got your country. Your president is spitting Russian propaganda to Zalensky's face: "you started the war", "Russia will respect peace", "Europe only loaned money", etc. Your country is falling apart, not mine.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/policing-speech-online-germany-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr548zdmz3jo