On the freedom of speech point, it seems to me that the distinction to make is between:
a) my right to say what I want
and
b) whether I should be held accountable for the consequences of my words
Obviously we should all be entitled to say what we want, when we want. So if this woman in the article wants to say "I thought breast feeding seemed creepy", she's completely entitled to do so. But if her words have consequences, in some cases that right might be curtailed - as it is with libel, slander, hate speech, racial vilification etc etc.
For me, it's up to her to choose how she feeds her baby, but I think it's sad her reason is that she thinks BF is 'creepy' because it suggests she has a rather limited relationship with her body. It seems she just thinks her breasts have one function, one status rather than at least two - sexual (for her partner and herself) and nurturing (for her baby). I'm sure many of us have had/will have to navigate that complexity, and how we do so is our business, but I think the problem with her approach is that instead of engaging with the complexity of having her once solely-sexual breasts take on a new role, she childishly just says "yuck, shan't, won't!". That, for me, is the problem with her attitude.
I don't think she's denigrating breast feeding in general, she's just saying it isn't for her... in a rather immature way.
But the real issue is whether it's true that by saying what she said in a public forum in that tone, it will have an unacceptable impact on other women - namely, putting them off breast-feeding for uninformed reasons (which seems to be the heart of much of the debate here).
Of course women can choose and should choose how they feed, and FF is a legitimate choice open to women (even if one thinks it's not the best choice, it's still a legitimate one for women living in the UK in 2010). The problem is where they make that choice on the basis of someone putting them off not because they've presented good reasons, but because they've fed some ill-founded aversion. And I do think 'creepiness' is an ill-founded aversion. Many women might feel something like this, but it's not a good basis on which to make a choice about your baby's health. That doesn't mean I don't think women shouldn't decide for personal reasons that they don't want to BF, but I do think if they're going to do that, because of the possible impact on another person (the baby) they should think a bit harder than merely indulging a 'yuck' reaction. If it's still not for them, fine. I don't even think their reasons have to be 'good' - whatever that means - they just need to have been thought through.
But the main reason I don't have a problem with the article (apart from thinking this woman is a twit) is I don't think it's that convincing to say it will put many women off BF. Knowing that someone else finds it 'creepy' has no impact on my views. But I can imagine that for someone impressionable, who's maybe young and/or who isn't well informed and doesn't have support or good examples around her, then it might. I guess if someone was already unsure, hearing someone else say "well, I think it's icky!" might tip the balance. But I'd expect in general, most pregnant women are hopefully receiving plenty of other good advice from their doctors, midwives and health visitors that would offset this. That, and the fact that most women want to do the best for their babies and make the best choices they can, I doubt this article's impact would be very significant. Apart from making this woman look like a bit of a git.
That said, M&B probably should have mitigated any possible impact by following the piece with some facts about breastfeeding, why it's good, where to get help and also that there is an alternative - formula - for those who can't or don't want to BF. Presented in a neutral, factual tone this would have made the article much less of a problem.
Phew, that was a bit of an essay!
Back to marking exams for me!