Correct. But because the Netherlands is the most ardent adherent to this inclusive, mutual respect philosophy, the situation is particularly difficult there.

Don't go there, Tex. This is not relevant to the topic at hand. Further, even in germane context, I can't imagine that even you would try to deny the sexist and, yes, misogynistic portrayal of women by the Grimm brothers.

I don't believe you need to force a dichotomy such as that, but it would require a more sophisticated approach than is usually employed.

That's what Obama was suggesting. That we've been living a false dichotomy for seven years now. The thing of it is, dichotomies are easy. If you reject the dichotomy, you have to use negotiate a more complex yet still realistic and effective solution. That must seem awfully daunting in a situation like what you see in The Netherlands.

The politics of the Netherlands are particularly complex, because of the huge influx of nonindigenous peoples.

I don't think their equivalent of the first amendment starts off by saying, "Congress shall make no law..." We take it to the extreme as far as the rest of the world goes, and it's reflected in the way the amendment was written.

here is the Dutch Constitution on the Expression. You may be overstating your case:

The German GrundGesetz is stronger:

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/gg/art_5.html

check out this article though.

http://snouck.blogspot.com/2006/01/f...therlands.html

In other words, when your speech discriminates you can be punsished.

If you wish to argue that the application of the lofty declarations is not always as perfect as we might desire, then I'm certain that is true.

That's correct. But the language our First Amendment is written in makes it harder to introduce loopholes to restrict the rights mentioned in it. It's harder to argue with the words "no law."

There is also this in the Dutch Constitution. I'm not sure how paragraph 2 can be interpreted there, but it seems to indicate the possibility of restricting speech for some reasons.

Article 61. Everyone shall have the right to profess freely his religion or belief,either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to hisresponsibility under the law.
2. Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings andenclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protectionof health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders