I think that this point is easy to miss, since it's practically a throwaway remark in the article: this does not appear to be in any direct sense about the woman's Facebook comment; rather, it is an intentionally overzealous application of a law to a situation where it applies only tenuously at best, in order to silence someone else's dissenting voice.

oh the rich rich irony of your comment here, you silencer of dissenting opinions you.