> misinformation campaign itself can not be considered "an assault on free speech"

How is it an assault if it doesn't prohibit the opposing opinion.

First, I quoted someone upthread who set the term. Second, in contemporary English, the word assault is used figuratively in the meaning of "attack" including "verbal attack".

It does not require the prohibition to happen. It does not have to succeed either.

> in contemporary English, the word assault is used figuratively in the meaning of "attack" including "verbal attack".

But how is it an attack on free speech? If it doesn't endanger free speech or threatened, or even refer to it.

I think you should articulate the connection, because I see no connection whatsoever.

The argument was done by person up thread. Go argue with him.

My claim is that those are two separate topics. I will be happy to argue that claim.