The precedent here is that any court, anywhere in the world, can censor anything worldwide.
That has been the case all along. This is not new. See the UK's "forget me" mess, or any number of other court/government orders dictating how an international company shall behave elsewhere in the world.
I believe this issue to be larger than just jurisdiction or free speech. It seems to me we have a case where the legally right (for the Internet as a whole) clashes with what is morally right (for the Internet as a whole), and also with what is both legally and morally right for one part of the world. Is it better to continue damaging the plaintiff when there is a (seemingly) clear wrong doing, simply because doing the bare minimum to stop damaging the plaintiff *might* trigger a larger discussion of laws and freedoms around the world? In this particular case, I think the "fix" just happens to be what is right for the Internet - remove the links to products that are no longer available (I think that is the case). In other words, clean up the 404 links. Doing so opens the potential that another party may use this case as a precedent to censor the world according to their beliefs. But I don't think that is comparing apples to apples. Cleaning up dead/outdated links is not the same as blatant censorship. If it were, every website out there has done horrible things.
I don't pretend to be an expert at law. But I think it's clear that the free speech concerns are not the central point in this case, even though they are A point that needs to be considered.
There's no future in time travel.