I totally agree with what you say. I think, though, that the starting points of this post are already an extreme interpretation of the freedom of speech. The whole post is just a twised and extreme viewpoint.

What I find interesting though is, that the argument he arrived at, pretty much contradicts the purpouse of freedom of speech.

He's like "Bits are just bits and the meaning of bits doesn't matter". But if it doesn't matter, why would you need to protect that? Freedom of speech only deserves protection because the speech (or the information) matters. If it wouldn't matter, it wouldn't be a big deal if random combinations of bit-values would be made illegal.