These are fair points if we read the article as a criticism of existing law. I didn't read it that way, mostly because of the current political context where "cancel culture" is a big issue. But I can certainly see how it can be taken that way. In that case, I can only say that I would strongly disagree that speech alone should never be actionable, there are just too many obvious exceptions such as the ones we've talked about here (libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment). Laws evolve for a reason. They are not academic exercises in philosophy, they arise from experience.