The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
The author misunderstands the European situation. Our laws are supposed to be the same as the US ones, i.e. they prevent incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness. We just place the bar for that differently, IMHO too low, but the intention is the same.
Some states go further than required by EU, which complicates the situation and leads to the kind of misunderstanding that we see here. The author confuses the two. We are not like the US, we don't have federal laws. The EU can create directives which it is then up to each state to implement, and with implementation varying somewhat. We also have the European Court of Human Rights, which is not part of the EU but which all member states are signed up to. It deals with freedom of speech but is not governed by the EU directly.
To take the specific example of "defamation of religions", blasphemy is no longer a crime in the UK and you can insult Mohammed freely. We are moving towards greater freedom to criticize religion, not less.