It seems meepmorp is correct, because in this context, bill already means “proposed law”, so “bill would outlaw” is redundant.

Really? You can't see how the present tense is clearly intended to mislead the reader into believing that these websites are right now outlawed? Sure, it may fail to mislead some readers who are alert to the technical distinction between "bill" and "law". But they will succeed in misleading many readers.

It is my fault for not knowing a definition of a word.

So you're fine with the media trying to exploit common misconceptions to mislead their readers? Maybe they could get you to believe something false if you have the common misconception regarding the meanings of "infer" and "imply". Or how about "flaunt" versus "flout" - getting readers to believe falsehoods with clever use of those words it totally fair game, I guess?

No, that is not okay. But I did some searching, and it did not seem like a common misconception. I was simply ignorant in this situation and somehow got to the age of 35 equating bill and law.

I even went back to this popular kids’ video to confirm if I was misremembering, but I could not find anywhere “official” that refers to bills as passed laws.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HiZu6SxOaCE

Why are you trying to make them presume bad faith where none exists?