Many advocates of free speech (such as this writer in Quillette) have asked whether the settlement will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. I think they are mistaken. No right is absolute. The right to free speech, such as is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, does not mean the right to be free of any costs of enjoying that right. This is probably the most misunderstood aspect of the nature of rights and this misunderstanding results in a distortion of the concept of rights. Rights are by definition universal, which means that my rights shouldn't abrogate your rights. It means that rights come with responsibilities. The right to life, for example, comes with the responsibility to provide for your own survival - it does not include the right to be fed.
In the case of defamation laws, there are two rights that are being balanced - your right to free speech with another person's right to pursue their own happiness. If you defame someone, you impose a cost on them - at the very least the intangible cost to their reputation but very often a real and tangible cost, such as on their ability to earn an income. The damages awarded in successful defamation suits do not abrogate your right to free speech but rather ensure you pay the costs of enjoying your right. The multi-million dollar award to Maajid Nawaz reinforces this important principle in law and won't have a chilling effect on free speech per se. The court didn't say SPLC couldn't continue to publish their Field Guide, only that it has a responsibility to get their facts rights and that there is a cost if they don't.