So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that

[Chathamization]

196. It doesn't mean that at all. No one seems to be saying that a political cartoonist is liable for

making a cartoon of Mohammed. What a few people have said, though, is that if someone like Geller - openly anti-Muslim - has made it her mission to convince people that Islam is violent, then stages an event she has no relationship with (she's not a cartoonist) other than her thinking it will elicit a violent response from some psychopath somewhere (see her warning people about a violent response and spending money on extra security), she might be culpable for trying to incite violence. One doesn't have to agree with that argument in order to see that it's completely different from saying "don't even say anything to piss off fundamentalists"; it seems to be saying "don't do anything that you think will elicit a violent reaction when you have no other purpose other than trying to elicit a violent reaction" (again, whether you agree with that or not it's a very different sentiment).

Since Geller isn't being charged (and there doesn't seem to be many here who think she should be), this isn't even a terribly interesting issue in terms of the question of whether speech meant to incite violence leaves on culpable. I'd say situations like the RTLMC station in Rwanda or Anwar al-Awlaki are more interesting, since in both those cases major bodies decided that individuals trying to elicit a violent response from others are culpable.