Peter Tatchell: His Right To Write Rubbish

It's difficult to write about freedom of speech without falling back on the same tired old truisms/cliches.
Ah Voltaire! Ah Mill! Ah Twain! Ah Orwell! 
The First Amendment. 
"Don't shout 'Ice creams and choc-ices!' in a crowded theatre" etc etc.
Peter Tatchell seemed hellbent on proving this in a piece he wrote yesterday on Why Banning The Anti-gay Bus Advert Is Wrong.
"They are offensive but being offensive is not a legitimate basis for banning anything. In a free society there is no right to not be offended... Free speech is for everyone - even those with whom we disagree."
Thanks Peter, but I think we knew that.
However this is not about censorship or "freedom of speech".
Have Core Issues Trust been stopped from promoting their pernicious message in any other way?
Has the state stepped in to stamp them out?
How is hijacking public space with a commercial advert a victory for free speech?
Further a company like Transport For London should be free to choose which adverts they carry.
If Pink News or GT had been asked to run the "ex-gay" ad should they have meekly done so?
Of course not - it's a simple and uncontroversial editorial decision - as was TFL's really.
Just like New Statesman and The Guardian - two sites that ran Peter's piece - are under no obligation to run endless articles on the wonders of Neo-Liberal capitalism.
If Tatchell were continually heckled at a talk so as he could not speak would he be wrong to ask for them to shut up or leave (Chomsky does this, by the way, saying they should organise their own meeting).
If the BNP asked Peter to put a poster in his window would he do so?
For someone who talks so much sense, Peter Tatchell doesn't half say some rubbish sometimes.
Of course I'd defend to the death his right to do so.