> All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process.

For what it's worth, I don't see that as the only outcome of the logic in the GP's post. I read the point as: due to self-censorship, we essentially reinforce the notion that terrorism works to silence speech.

Not to put any words in the poster's mouth, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem is to accept the risk and generate more speech, and to prove that murder is not an effective way to stop such speech.