They demonstrate this by lobbying to suppress freedom of speech? Weird. You haven't justified restricting free speech. I am willing (happy) to admit that some animal-rights people are uninformed blowhards. But that doesn't justify punching holes in the first amendment.
According to the article, the law intends to prevent animal rights activists, who show some intent to harm the operation, from conducting their business on private property without permission. That is a lot closer, if anything, to being a trespassing matter, not one of free speech.
I'm not sure that still justifies it, and I am not in favour of it myself, but I don't think we want to go down the road of misguided analogies like comparing copyright to theft. Surely people should have some say over what happens on their private property, and if they are being prevented from doing so for whatever reason, perhaps a law of some kind (not necessarily this one) is needed?
Granted, I haven't read the actual wording of the law yet, or have any understanding who is behind it and what their motivation is, so perhaps the article is off base.
