Well, I'm in agreement that this extremist violence was wrong, of course. But in the case of this guy... what the heck was he thinking? I know there's the whole thing about making a point, and testing freedom of speech. But depicting Muhummad as a dog? I find it hard to believe he didn't anticipate or court this reaction. There's making a point, and there's common sense.
In the larger sense of this argument, i think it's more a judgment on our sense of taste/humor/respect. There should be no banning, but must we really go here? I have yet to talk to a muslim friend or classmate that is not pissed about this. How is "pushing the boundaries" it worth it.
Chistian fundamentalists are equally as bad... they're just generally not violent. Like those people a while back 'protesting' at military funerals. It's all disgusting.
I'm not convinced all of these instances were designed to provoke, so the instigators could come back and say "look at these people, they don't like free speech!", plus the whole publicity factor.
Just trying to see things from the other perspective.