No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

[Yo_Mama]

117. It doesn't matter who her rhetoric is directed at - it matters whether it is illegal or not

And it is legal, and I would argue that it ought to be legal.

The problem here is that there are some Muslims who react to rhetoric with violence, which is not compatible with life in a free society. They are the problem, not Geller.

And it is those who want to ban the speech that might provoke such persons to violence who are creating the Gellers.

You've got cause and effect entirely reversed.

What about those who have argued with the Catholic church's dogmas on divorce, male priesthood, abortion, homosexuality, etc, etc? Do you want to encourage offended Catholics to take up arms? Do you think Catholics have the right to shoot people who steal the Eucharist? Should that be banned because it is so acutely offensive?
http://www.catholicleague.org/eucharist-desecrated-no-penalty-for-professor/

No, no one ever thinks about such a step, or argues for it, because Catholics aren't going to whack those who do such a thing. Those who are arguing that it should be illegal to make cartoons of Muhammed are doing so not to protect religious sensibilities, but to appease those who will react with violence.

If we ever allow any individual's willingness to resort to violence to govern what may or may not be said in public, we have effectively lost freedom of speech, and I guarantee you that we will be breeding extremists like flies.

Note that very, very few Muslims would react as those two did - and at least one was already well known to the FBI for being an extremist.

There is no right, and there can be no right in our society, of any religious icon or symbol or idea to be protected from critical speech. All of history shows that once we establish such a right, we create endless war.