Pastor weighing plans to burn Qurans amid U.S. warnings

[Skybird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419

Since it was claimed that burning the Quran would be illegal, violating laws, or even an act of terrorism.

(...)
In fact, there was little the federal government could do but but watch - the US constitution rendered it almost powerless to stop the bonfire.

The United States stands apart from many other Western democracies in priding itself on a near absolute commitment to allowing freedom of speech.
It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US constitution, alongside the right to free exercise of religion.
(...)
"The fundamental principle is that the government cannot restrict speech based on its content, even if an audience finds it offensive," says Prof Tim Zick, a First Amendment specialist from the William and Mary Law School.

"A speaker's autonomy to express himself - even in this deeply offensive manner - is, if not sacrosanct, then very highly regarded."

As a nation, he says, America has made a very different calculation about the protection of the speaker versus the dignity of the audience than many countries in Europe. America prioritises the autonomy of the speaker.
Denying the Holocaust, for example, is illegal in 16 European countries.

Germany has banned the production and dissemination of pro-Nazi material.
But in the US, the courts have protected the rights of Nazis to express their views.

In one well-known case, the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to uphold the right of a neo-Nazi group to march through the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois, and display swastikas.

I can'T say that I am a fan of this kind of understanding of "unlimited freedoms", as a recent debate two weeks has shown. But I am willing to follow the motto of "different countries, different habits" as long as in my country we are not obliged to follow the american example, and to refuse it. On the other hand, the anonymous authority of the political correctness brigade more and more limits free speech, sometimes by criminalising unwanted opinions by according laws, sometimes brandmarking them by public witch hunts and labelling the subject with terms like "racists" or "Nazi".

It seems to me that both the European and american system are not perfect and can claim to be be better than the other. In one case the one system may be better for human diginity and upholding moral values. In another case, it is the other system making more sense. I think it is good advise if neither America nor the EU claims to have the monopole on being right on the issue. In case of doubt or conflict, a sense of realism to me works best.