As difficult as it may be to accept, 'hate-speech', prophanity, blasphemy, epithet laden diatribes, gutter slang or whatever, *is* legitimate if one accepts or believes that 'free speech' is a desirable 'right' within a society.
It may also be difficult to accept but extremism is as much a part of protest as is an intellectual address.
None of these behaviours are particularly palatable and few, caring and well-meaning people would agree with or welcome their use. However, they do constitute steps along continua, no less and no more. That they may be, at times and perhaps even most of the time, undesirable or even reprehensible to some, in no way negates their validity.
Wars are violent, disgusting, tragedies which kill, maim and dispossess the civilian & the soldier, in each case those individuals more often than not having no desire for whatever conflict may be affecting them and not wishing to be a part of it.
However, wars are portrayed as readily as behaviours of integrity, necessity & accomplishment, as they are of opportunism, hate, greed or savagery. - A necessary evil - is how they are often painted, yet there is no 'necessary evil', indeed there is no 'evil', there is only motivation, intent, behaviour, context, circumstance and such.
Holy texts exist only for those who subscribe to the laws/codes/prescriptions of particular religions, cults or other forms of mass indoctrination by whatever name.
I have no religion, therefore the burning of a book, written by human beings, yet purported to be the 'word' of some assumed extant deity, for which not one scrap of evidence has been discovered in all of human history, has no meaning in relation to the reiigion or cult that hold it dear.
Where it has meaning for me is not when it offends someone or many, for all of us offend someone or many at times and usually at many times of our lives. No, it has meaning for me if it is done as Hitler and other tyrants caused to be done, for the purpose of destroying access to copies of it or as a symbol that it is not to be read, is prohibited or against the law.
To pause for a moment from the main topic and address the associated one in your article, that of violence. Of course, I am not condoning violence or violent acts. I am not suggesting that it is reasonable to burn down a mosque or church or temple or shrine or whatever. Neither do I suggest that imprisoning, injuring or killing of others for their beliefs is acceptable. It ought to be clear from what I have written that such is not the case. However, in case any reader has confusion, I feel it worth saying very clearly.
My point is that we confuse conditioned beliefs, often well entrenched in our minds and ways of life, even to the extent that, in the case of religions for instance, we are taught to 'respect' ministers, priests, imams, or other forms of cleric or officers of whatever church may hold sway in our society or part of it.
That 'respect' is as nonsensical as is the requirement for us to respect a senior politician, a monarch or those of whatever revered title they may have acquired and whether deserving of it or not. The United Kingdom has just received a new king and many will bow to his 'majesty'. I will not. If there is one thing I detest it is the absurd notion of 'the right to rule' - that someone gains excessive power & privilge simply because of heredity is extreme nonsense and that it is even contemplated in 2023 is bizarre, to say the least. When that person is a man who was having an affair with another woman before durng and after his marriage to a young, relatively naive & unsuspecting, perhaps even not particularly willing, bride, is despicable. Should I respect this individual? - No rational person could suggest that I should.
Articles such as this one, whilst valuable in raising some legitimate issues, unfortunately also serve to perpetuate focus on symptoms, rather than causes.
The question, legitimate enough as it is, ought not to be why some express outrage when one man burns a Quran but are quiet when another does the same or even worse. The real question is 'why?" - and an actually useful answer to that question will not be a reference to his particular personality or character or background but, rather, by reference to the conditions, mores, traits, beliefs, rituals, traditions, hierarchies, conventions and etc. of the society and world in which he lives.
If he is deserving of blame then so are we all.
