The author here is full of crap. You can't have it both ways. You can't hold up "freedom of speech" as it if were some kind of sacred institution, then criticize someone for refusing to publish something for any reason whatsoever.
Did it occur to the author that maybe a lot of these media outlets found the content of Charlie Hebdo's publication offensive?
You certainly can if you know the reasons.
Did it occur to the author that maybe a lot of these media outlets found the content of Charlie Hebdo's publication offensive?
The author in this case is one of Australia's most prominent journalists writing for (and in) it's largest circulation newspaper. He also writes for the country's largest circulation newspaper. He knows the editors personally and has probably close to daily interactions with him. He knows the owners personally (including the ultimate owner of the papers, Rupert Murdoch). He has personally been pursued through the courts by left wing groups who succeeded in having two of his articles banned because they argued they 'racially vilified' people, and he's been threatened with similar cases on other occasions, and watched as his editors, and other employers, refused to do everything legally possible to defend him out of fear that they would be put at risk, thus endangering the very idea of freedom of the press in this country.
So I don't think he's full of crap. He knows damned well why newspapers in this country didn't print the cartoons. If he was allowed to and nobody else would do it, I'm sure he'd be putting them in his own columns just to make the point. But there's no way his paper's editors would let him and he knows why.