The idea that somebody shouldn't say something because it may elicit a violent reaction by somebody else seems to have dangerous logical conclusions that could

The idea that somebody shouldn't say something because it may elicit a violent reaction by somebody else seems to have dangerous logical conclusions that could include actually encouraging violent reactions to speech in order to silence it. For example, the recent mural by the Taiwanese businessman in Oregon (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-asks-city-in-oregon-to-scrub-mural-for-tibetan-taiwanese-independence?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-as...) is clearly protected political speech, and obviously nobody died because of it. However, if it led to violent reactions in China that resulted in some deaths, should it be suppressed? Now, religion could be argued to be in a different category; however, I have a hard time accepting that argument due to the politicization of religion. As long as a religion has political implications, speech critical of it should be protected in the same way other political speech is protected. That doesn't mean you should be able to explicitly encourage violence against members of a religion, but it does mean that Southpark and a Danish cartoon should be allowed to parody religion to make a political point.