You're missing something. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this particular situation, it's self-evident that a right to freedom on expression is not carte blanche to publish anything – you're still rightly subject to controls.
OK, there could be an argument that knowingly linking to infringing files is outside of freedom of expresssion. But the article says nothing about a knowledge criterion.
It says "owners of sites found to be making money [directly or indirectly!] from linking to pirated material will face prison sentences of up to six years and the closure of their site. ... users of these link-sharing sites will not be targeted under the new law"
This is even worse. Users who knowingly post links to infinging files would be a more appropriate target than the site owners. Under the new law, anyone who allows user posts will have to pre-moderate everything or prohibit users posting links?
The obvious problem with the law is much more basic: how can the site owner know whether there is or is not infringement at the other end of a link? Are site owners expected to somehow have a list of all copyrightable works and know the terms on which each of them is licensed to each recipient?
Placing the burden on the operator of the linking site creates a situation where no one will dare to make a link, because if it turns out to go to something infringing the linker will be subject to prosecution.
