Both parts of that sentence stand on their own.

How do you feel that omitting the first part changes the meaning of the second part?

Also: please take a moment to read the HN guidelines on comments.

I apologize for calling someone a propagandist.

Personally I feel like the media inhibiting freedom of speech when they're pushing their list of OK things to think down people's throat and stigmatize even discussing certain topics.

As what you describe does not limit anyone's freedom of speech, you're factually wrong though.

That's a myopic take. Soft enforcement is still enforcement.

But nobody described any enforcement here.

Well, criticism is an opinion; everyone is entitled to their opinions (freedom of speech), but I expect neutrality from journalists.

That is, a journalist can report on immigration, but a personal opinion (or criticism) has no place in the news itself.

Journalism and personal opinions or interpretations of the news should be kept separate IMO.

Do you see anyone here arguing that journalistic reports should be biased by personal opinion? You're making quite some leaps there.