There is a tortured argument at least for the bulk of the law, it runs like this: "The publishing of rebuttals doesn't constrain freedom of speech, in fact ensures the freedom of speech of those whom the media mis-reported and libeled before without any outlet for those to give their version uncorrupted!" The one part that definitely breaches freedom of speech is the prohibition to react to the corrections/responses (as the rebuttals are officially called).

But there are other, equally bothersome aspects which aren't directly against freedom of speech:

• the practical breach of editorial freedom: wih equal space ensured for the rebuttals, the rebutters in effect become co-editors of the papers (and TV news?);
  
• the lack of a truth check, which allows a he-said-she-said avalanche;
  
• the exclusive responsibility of the media for what's printed, even if it's a rebuttal...