Balancing freedom of speech with the need to prevent incitement of hatred

The move was condemned by political and religious leaders around the world, with President Barack Obama warning it would be a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaida, and Mr Jones eventually called off the event.

However, the controversial, Florida-based, preacher is back in the spotlight after he was invited to address the far-Right English Defence League (EDL). Last night it emerged the EDL had withdrawn their invitation, but Mr Jones said he still intended to come to the UK to preach in the new year.

Speaking at the weekend, the Home Secretary Theresa May said she was actively considering whether to ban him from entering the country, where he had intended to preach "against the evils and destructiveness of Islam" at a far-Right rally in Luton.

Despite widespread calls for him to be refused entry, Mr Jones insisted he would be bringing a "positive message" for the English people and made clear that he would resist any attempt by the Government to prevent him coming to the UK.

"I don't know if I would just simply accept that. I think I would protest that," he said. "I would hope that would not be the case because I have given my word that we will not do anything against the law or do anything that would cause an uprising or violence."

Despite the controversy caused by his plans to burn the Koran he had suggested his planned visit would be a moderating influence on the EDL, which has been linked to a series of violent protests. "If I am there and have anything to say and any type of influence, I will definitely demand that we have a peaceful demonstration or a peaceful rally. I do not advocate violence of any form," he said.

News of his proposed visit led to a flurry of protests from both Muslim groups and anti-extremist organisations such as Hope Not Hate, which has launched a petition calling for Mr Jones to banned. But while no right-thinking person condones burning books, whether it's the Bible, or the Koran, or indeed anything else for that matter, this country has a long tradition of allowing people the right to have their say, no matter how offensive it might be.

However, even those organisations usually at the front of the queue when it comes to defending individual rights and freedoms did not support the pastor's proposed visit. Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Mr Jones is entitled to his free speech; to exercise it in the US and via the internet – to try and poison this Christmas season – all over the world. He does not however, have a right to holidays in Luton – a pleasure that many other people are refused. Given the inevitable strife and policing costs of an unwelcome visit, the Home Secretary might be forgiven for thinking we have enough nutters of our own."

The Home Secretary has the power to exclude an individual from coming to the UK if they are not conducive to the public good, or on the grounds of national security and she has already been lobbied by various groups urging her to bar Mr Jones's entry.

However, she will no doubt be mindful of what happened across the pond where the Obama administration was criticised for giving further publicity to his book-burning stunt by condemning it.

Whatever decision she makes, Ms May faces a tough choice. If she does impose a travel ban she runs the risk of making the pastor look like a victim who is being gagged. But on the other hand, it seems likely that his speaking at an event would attract a volatile mix of Right-wing extremists, Islamic protesters and anti-fascist groups, requiring a huge police presence.

But in a liberal democracy is censorship the best answer? Dr Agnes Callamard, executive director of the human rights organisation Article 19 doesn't think so. She says a ban would be "heavy handed" and should only be used as a last resort. "By banning him you run the risk of presenting him as victim, or a hero, and that's certainly not what we wish for."

She believes the grounds for denying him entry into the UK are questionable, saying "it is unlikely that the presence of the pastor will be a threat to public security and public order".

Instead, Dr Callamard wants to see his views questioned through a vigorous debate. "We understand that many people will find his position reprehensible and while we do, we also believe it is more important for the debate to be aired and for people to protest against it, rather than the discussion to be shut."

Mr Jones isn't the first person who has found the doors firmly closed when he has tried setting foot on English soil. Last year, the controversial Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders was stopped from entering the UK on the grounds that he could be a threat to public order, despite being invited here by the Eurosceptic party UKIP.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed said his presence would pose a risk because his views about the Koran – which Wilders called a "fascist book" – generate so much anger among Muslims. But the furore that surrounded the case led to Wilders going from being a marginal figure in Dutch politics, to a cause clbre for free speech in Britain.

More than 270 people have been prevented from entering the UK in the past five years because their presence was "not conducive to the public good".

The Home Secretary has the final say on who is allowed into the country, but this power comes from case law, rather than from any legislation, and can be challenged through a judicial review, in which the person concerned must present evidence that they are not, in fact, a threat.

Those excluded in recent years include everyone from religious extremists, neo-Nazis and animal rights activists, to rap artists and lifestyle gurus. In 2008, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a controversial Muslim cleric who defended suicide attacks, was refused a visa to enter the UK after a campaign by David Cameron. The Egyptian-born cleric was described at the time as "dangerous and divisive" by the Conservative leader, although the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) criticised the decision, saying that Dr al-Qaradawi enjoyed respect as a scholar throughout the Muslim world.

Gavin Phillipson, professor of law at Durham University, says any decision on whether or not someone can enter the UK boils down to the law in this country. And he doubts whether Mr Jones would win an appeal if indeed he is barred from coming here.

"He has promised not to break English law, although I don't know if he's aware how different it is to American law, particularly with regard to inciting religious hatred. If he said the things he has said in the United States then he would fall foul of English law and the fact he has been invited to speak by the English Defence League doesn't inspire much confidence," he says.

"British people can't say the things he has, so why should someone from outside the country be allowed to come here and say such things? No-one has the right to come to this country outside the EU. It is a privilege, not a right." And he believes the Government would have a strong case for refusing to allow him in.

"It is important that we have vigorous criticism of established religions and hold up their doctrines to scrutiny and under the law there are ways of doing this. But a speech designed to stir up hatred is where the line is drawn and that seems reasonable to me."

Barred from britain

Several high-profile figures have been prevented from entering the UK in recent years, including:

Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders was refused entry because his opinions threatened community and public "security" in the UK.

Muslim cleric Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi refused entry because the Home Office said the UK would not tolerate the presence of those who sought to justify acts of terrorist violence.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan barred on the grounds that his allegedly racist and anti-Semitic views could threaten public order.

US lifestyle guru Martha Stewart denied entry because of criminal convictions over a sale of stocks.