Actually, that's not quite the point here.
The reason this law was passed in the first place is because countries assume jurisdiction over what happens in their country, and also, over people and companies who interact with their citizens. That is the reason that gambling companies based in the EU can be fined for trying to sell their gambling services to Dutch citizens - where it is illegal - even when it's legal to do so in the country they have their headquarter in.
So, the EU as a whole is asserting that Google should not be able to provide information *about its citizens* to anyone, when requested to do so. And since Google is doing business in the EU, the EU has jurisdiction.(*)
Free speech however is a different matter. While Google would be liable for showing speech critical of the King in Thailand, they would not be so liable outside Thailand since that speech does not interact with Thai citizens.
The cases may look similar, but they are not: it's a jurisdiction issue, IMO.
(*) It's well known that there have been cases where the USA claimed jurisdiction because one of the parties involved had used a US mail server, like gmail. So jurisdiction is what you have (or try to have) when the case touches remotely on one of your citizens or any asset based on your soil.