So it looks as though Pam Geller really did want to provoke a violent response to her little event

[jobycom]

130. A better analogy would be burning a cross on a black family's lawn.

The reason THAT form of expression is generally outlawed is because it is not an attempt at expression primarily, even though it obviously expresses a belief, but is an attack on someone--an attempt to frighten, dehumanize, and provoke them.

Geller's event was the same. If a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad to make some point about religion or whatever, that's speech, or expression. If someone draws a picture of Muhammad to flip of Muslims, show them that they are powerless and their values meaningless in our society, then that's an attack on them.

If you want to believe that such "expressions" are acceptable, go ahead. Burn all the crosses (or whatever cultural equivalent you choose) you want. But don't compare what Geller did to "The Book of Mormon." Her event was an act of violent degredation, not expression.

And no, that does not justify anyone dying over it. Both acts should be condemned.