Well said. It’s utter tripe.
The author writes:
"There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.
Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don't realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance."
Apart from the obvious logical fallacy of staring your argument with a presumption that everyone else is somehow lacking in intellectual capacity, the author fails to realize that the responsibility assumed by those who believe in free speech is to tolerate the speech of others they disagree with. And to recognize the moral failure, in for example, hitting the obnoxious protestor. That's why freedom loving Americans can go toe to toe with leftist protestors and not end up in a giant fist fight.
Under Ferreri's logic, a violent response to speech is expected and natural, and limits on speech are acceptable. In fact, he advocates protecting Christianity from speech directed against it:
"Here we get to answer the question regarding the core principles and goals that must be protected from attacks, the line that freedom of speech must not cross .... Christianity must be protected from its enemies, then as now ... That revolting excuse of a rag has been a procession of covers offending Christianity"
In the end Ferreri ends up essentially where the terrorists started - believing that a magazine can "offend" a religion, and therefore it should be suppressed or punished. That's a ridiculous point of view.