First of all, let me make it clear that I am not defending the cancel culture mentality.
I read a lot of books by people with whom I disagree. I also encourage those who I seek to mentor to examine subjects from divergent views.
For example, when working with some teenagers I may recommend four books of which three are autobiographies and the other one might as well be, although technically the material was compiled posthumously. Two of these books are about men who are often admired by those on the left and two by men who are conservatives. They are "The autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.," "The Measure of a Man," "My Grandfather's Son," and "What Color is a Conservative".
However, Freedom of Speech as the term is used legally in the USA pertains to the government not being allowed to criminalize what a person says as long as the person is not saying it in the process of committing a crime.
But at the moment, the UK is debating what is being referred to in the UK as "Freedom of Speech" but they are not focusing on a law which would prevent the UK government from criminalizing what a person says, they are using this phrase to refer to what is sometimes called Cancel Culture. They want to make it illegal for Universities to refuse to provide a venue for someone with whom the University disagrees.
I fully understand why many people philosophically think that many other people are building an "echo chamber" in which they refuse to even consider what people who disagree with them say but this kind of a law has consequences that are detrimental.
Consider this: Would it be appropriate for a government to require a church to provide a platform for an atheistic university professor to express his views? Now flip that around. Would it be a appropriate for a government to require a non-religious school (whose faculty and student body tend towards agnosticism and atheism) to provide a platform for a theistic preacher to express his views?
What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. For any reader who is a Bible believer, the Law given to Israel specifically prohibited using two different sets of weights when using a balancing scale.
This is the same kind of mentality of those who claim that the Southern States that seceded were fighting for State's Rights when they actually opposed the rights of the Northern states many times in the years prior to the civil war, the Dred Scott case is one example.
I've told people many times you cannot be a supporter of religious freedoms if you are an opponent of the religious freedoms of other religions.
Here is the article from The Guardian