His motivations are irrelevant to the question of whether the laws are demonstrably worse than the UK's. You think that the UK's laws don't have an impact on free speech in their country? Talk to a first amendment practitioner at a major international media company and ask them about the special procedures they use to keep things out of the UK. Papers have explicitly carved out particular sections of articles, have blocked UK IPs from accessing portions of the website, and have even changed content in order to avoid the multitude of lawsuits.
Here's one particularly interesting example: After 9/11, there was a lot of interest around the world as to the involvement of rich Saudis in funding various terrorist groups. Because sharia law requires tithing, most of the wealthy people in SA were just chucking money at various charities without doing much diligence, in order to meet their religious obligations. As a result, some of that money was ending up in bad hands. As various UK newspapers started investigating this and reporting on early attempts by the US to monitor these funds, the Saudis who were being named filed a barrage of lawsuits in the UK. The general counsels of a couple dozen major companies got together to decide what to do, and initially agreed that they were going to go forward and fight the claims. Two days later, every single paper other than the Wall Street Journal Europe backed out and decided to settle with the Saudis. The WSJ got involved in an 8 year battle that they lost at the early stages (thanks to ****ty initial judges), but managed to win in the House of Lords. However, because of the fact that every single other company had settled, news reports about Saudis and terror financing have effectively evaporated from the entire UK.
When you have the entire news media being too cowed to run stories of critical public importance for the fear that the figures involved will sue and win, your laws are no longer serving the public interest.