The UK has in practice a greater tolerance of eccentricity, unorthodoxy, not fitting in, etc. Seizing and destroying books, or other legally derived measures are not the only method of inhibiting free speech

Yep, JJ, I was just about to come out with something along these lines. Freedom of speech/expression is about more (and less) than having a Constitution that openly stands for it. After all, no books would ever be banned in a country with true, complete freedom of speech. In practice freedom of expression is compromised by the need to retain other "freedoms" such as freedom from obscenity and freedom from blasphemy.

This article is interesting, on how many Western countries ended up effectively banning The Satanic Verses for a time, and thus supporting the Ayatollah:
http://www.atheists.org/Islam/lessons.html


There was a curious and somewhat chilling silence from the White House and other governmental quarters about the Rushdie affair. Of course, with so many governmentalists busy defending censorship of books, magazines, videos, and other material (to "fight drugs" or "combat pornography," the two often linked in the public imagination), it was difficult to defend Satanic Verses on the basis of so libertarian a notion as freedom of expression.


And these days in the UK and the US there is also government censorship as part of the "War Against Terrorism".