Being a lawyer (albeit not an English one), I find this decision quite problematic. This goes way beyond the accepted practice of forcing someone to publicly "take back" what they previously stated. The way I see it, this is an instance of forcing someone to publicly state an opinion that isn't theirs, which where I'm from is - with narrow exceptions in the area of commercial speech, like product information ruels - considered an infringement on the freedom of speech.
Once the state can force private citizens to express certain opinions, it becomes hard to tell what people really want to say. And that is integral to a democratic society.