It is directly relevant to your post. You denied that the bill constitutes censorship because
silencing the communication of illegal information is not censorship. Taking your argument to its logical extreme is perfectly legitimate. If what you said is true, then it is necessarily true that any speech that is declared to be illegal can be silenced without such a thing being considered censorship. The absurdity of that position suggests that your claim
is absurd. Since your claim was relevant to the thread (otherwise, why would you have posted it?), it follows that my response was relevant.