It is only really in instances where large groups of people could be offended that these actions are taken. You could interpet it as suppressing the view of these people, but if that were the case then that person's views would not be broadcast at all. The BBC still discuss Westboro Baptists and Qur'ran burners despite their banned status in the UK. They're only banned from entering the country, not declaring thier views.
To me that instance with the pastor seems like they rather suppress a person's view because someone cannot respect the right to that person's freedom of speech and would attack or kill them. Seems more like placating.
The logic is that it is protecting the minority. If a famous person has such radical views that people would gladly kill them, then foreign countries aren't going to let them in, to protect both parties involved. Take the pastor who wanted to burn a copy of the Qur'ran, he was banned from the UK becasue if he had come here, there would be an incredibly high chance that a member of our population of the Muslim faith might attack or kill him. The UK government would have to organise police protection for these individuals, much in the same way the Phelps family are guarded during thier protests in the US. And that's not fair on the woman who is raped because the police supposed to be on patrol is protecting some outspoken foreigner.
Isn't a bit funny to say "freedom of speech" for everybody but then a country(ies) ban a person for their views/what they say? I thought that idea of free speech was to protect the minority, the dissenting views, the views the majority may despise.
