Some people are complaining it's unfair. Really? He attempted to physically assault a foreign head of state. Despite my disgust with the Prime Minister of China (who the article notes recieved similar treatment at Cambridge) and his regime's human rights violations, I think his assaulter should be jailed too. You don't commit assault and call it "free speech". My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins and all that. Otherwise, where does it end? Was turning fire hoses on civil rights marchers in the South protected speech just because those who did it disagreed? Obviously not.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.