Typical liberal argument.
1) demand proof (link)
2) once provided evidence...claim "Do two wrongs make it right?
3) once shown that it's sacred law....attack the messenger.
LOL! Thanks for playing.
I'm not saying the article is wrong. In fact, I'm granting the premise of the article you posted - that the law represents an impermissible restriction on free speech - and now asking why it's impermissible when it's done by law, and why it's permissible when it's done by Trump.
Sorry if I assumed you had the brains necessary to draw the obvious inferences.