BoomBooomCousin - I was pointing out how ridiculous very large, loud parts of the US could be about other countries just disagreeing with them to the point that France disagreeing about going to war meant people changed the name of food - people in the US have called to go to war over less than people calling for death of a President -- and have been involved in many deadly conflicts for far smaller slights.
The burning flag issue is another ballpark by a society that from early childhood one is expected to fall in line with the land of freedom BS thing and uses allegiance to the flag to do so and actually ignores official protocols of said flag - the way to properly dispose of a US flag that is not up to standard is by burning it (and flying it upside down is a distress call which is why so many are doing so in the current batch of protests). Much like popular fictional dystopia societies, the image of superior freedoms - and the ingraining of that image from a young age by using the few who have it as the image they spread to the world - is far more important than the reality where the few have it at the cost of most.
I would argue that the US protects freedom of speech for some, those few in line with power groups, not all. The recent countrywide protests and the official reaction to them speak very loudly about who is allowed to say what. The idea that freedom of speech is very ingrained in US culture to me is a sad joke because the US has a very long history of government agencies getting rid of anyone who speaks out against them and the power dynamics they support who get too much traction. ([http://www.thekingcenter.org/assassination-conspiracy-trial See 1999 when the US government was found guilty for taking part in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr]] and the massive files the various US intelligence agencies had on him and how many ways they tried to get rid of him - and that was someone who was peacefully protesting against the US government and the White supremacy they support - and that's before we get into how many worldwide conflicts the US had been part of because they disagreed with the people's choices in those countries). And it has been noted that many areas known for active protest groups have funding to their schools and facilities cut by the US government to the point of closure - Chicago is particularly hurting because of this right now.
I personally feel I have far more freedom of speech in the UK as a mixed race person than I ever had in the States and I've found it is far more ingrained here for most people that speaking out doesn't mean I would be at fault if I came to harm by others. At least I feel free to peacefully protest or be a witness without being killed or film the police without being imprisoned. Sure, the many KKK groups (which some US presidents were members of...) and Westboro church have freedom of speech in the US, but the rest of us? I wouldn't risk it, I won't even risk going back at this point. The EDL in my area openly use their free speech, freedom to assemble, and can be very intimidating for me to the point we're saving up to move, but I've yet to ever feel that the system or most of the public would support them if they actually harmed someone.
But I don't think the cancelling of The Interview is a freedom of speech issue and find it sad that it is becoming a symbol of it (I also agree that it is doubtful that North Korea was responsible). Many many movies have been pulled over time because of concerns of people reactions - after 9/11 there were several in production and done movies that were pulled because their theme ran too close - because bad reactions are bad for business. Sony is already smarting after so many of their disgusting, racist and sexist emails were released to the public and pulling a racist movie when others on a similar vein were linked to incited violence just makes sense for them when they will be scrambling to improve their image. This is about business, image and money, this movie just isn't worth it to Sony after the losses this hacking has caused for them, taking the hit for one film and boosting their more financially promising films that are more likely to do well internationally just makes good business sense at this point.