The Tories are considering a law to punish universities if they interfere with freedom of speech. Opponents say that the law would instead limit freedom of speech. But the arguments presented in the article seem very weak: "It's complicated, don't interfere" is not persuasive, and neither is "Only 53 people were deplatformed in a year."

Given that the law is being proposed by Tories, and Tories are not known for scrupulously respecting the rights of the non-rich, I will not rule out the possibility that the law would indeed do the opposite of its stated purpose.

However, I think it should not be hard to design the law so that it can't interfere with speaking. If the Tories don't want to do that, a constructive proposal could demonstrate what they are really aiming at.