Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

You have to understand Max, speech is not a protected freedom in the UK,

Why should anyone apologize for anyone who mocks Islam and The Prophet?

So you apologize for every "Dick" in the world.

The Islamists understand us better than do most of us.

These incidents occurred on 9/11/12 and the Useful Idiots not only accept the assertion that they were in response to an insignificant expression of antipathy for Islam, they sympathize with it.

How has it come to pass, in the West, that expressions of antipathy towards Islam are expressions of hate while expressions of antipathy towards Christianity are expressions of rationalism?

Absolute rubbish, we are much more free than you are in America, with your biased media, appalling education system and 'kill the poor' health service. You've got a bunch of oligarchs running most of the show, and if anyone steps out of line like the Dixie Chicks they're publicly vilified.

Probably because he thought he'd be away from the gaze of the British Media, and he was with people he could trust.

He's learnt a lesson.

But he could not do his plan in your country, you are not that free there, he had to come here.

Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existing in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest. Indeed, the MSM's failings were all the more important because of the unusually influential role they played in advance of the war-of-choice with Iraq. "When America has been attacked -- at Pearl Harbor, or as on September 11 -- the government needed merely to tell the people that it was our duty to respond, and the people rightly conferred their authority," noted Harold Meyerson in the American Prospect magazine. "But a war of choice is a different matter entirely. In that circumstance, the people will ask why. The people will need to be convinced that their sons and daughters and husbands and wives should go halfway around the world to fight a nemesis that they didn't really know was a nemesis."

It's not fair to suggest the MSM alone convinced Americans to send some sons and daughter to fight. But the press went out of its way to tell a pleasing, administration-friendly tale about the pending war. In truth, Bush never could have ordered the invasion of Iraq -- never could have sold the idea at home -- if it weren't for the help he received from the MSM, and particularly the stamp of approval he received from so-called liberal media institutions such as the Washington Post, which in February of 2003 alone, editorialized in favor of war nine times. (Between September 2002 and February 2003, the paper editorialized twenty-six times in favor of the war.) The Post had plenty of company from the liberal East Coast media cabal, with high-profile columnists and editors -- the newfound liberal hawks -- at the New Yorker, Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, the New Republic and elsewhere all signing on for a war of preemption. By the time the invasion began, the de facto position among the Beltway chattering class was clearly one that backed Bush and favored war. Years later the New York Times Magazine wrote that most "journalists in Washington found it almost inconceivable, even during the period before a fiercely contested midterm election [in 2002], that the intelligence used to justify the war might simply be invented." Hollywood peace activists could conceive it, but serious Beltway journalists could not? That's hard to believe. More likely journalists could conceive it but, understanding the MSM unspoken guidelines -- both social and political -- were too timid to express it at the time of war.