I agree with you that it's possible to hold contradictory views - we all do to some extent. I agree with you that intent matters (though I think Ben T. would argue that intent never matters). But that probably shouldn't be the standard.

This morning on Morning Edition there was a discussion with Tina Brown on a story about the revolution in Libya (IIRC). A mild-mannered guy was driven to act against an army base that had been a source of attacks against people in his town. There had been skirmishes outside the gates, but nobody was able to get inside. So he filled up his car with various things and drove it up to the gate and detonated it, allowing the rebels inside and killing himself in the process. It apparently was a critical action early in the rebellion.

Steve Inskeep and Tina Brown both talked about how brave he was and how he was driven to be a "suicide bomber" to help his people overthrow the oppressors. All without any apparent irony or memory of how that term has been used over the past 10 years or so... :-/ The intent is the same in both cases - to attack the oppressor. But one we view as good, one we view as evil. (I'm not saying they're the same; simply that it's difficult to write the ability to make judgements based on any conceivable circumstances into the law.)

Free speech and expression is very important. I think in the abstract that there should be strong rules against incitement. I was recently surprised by how the Supreme Court has ruled on anti-incitement laws - the incitement apparently must be directed toward an "immediate particular violent goal" (or something like that) to be legally forbidden.

The leaders in Afghanistan that stirred up the crowd were guilty of incitement according to the Supreme Court's definition (as I understand it). They should be prosecuted if similar laws exist in Afghanistan. The guy in Florida, from what I know about the story thus far, not so much.

Whenever religion or ideals of cultural majesty get raised, things can get ugly when "bloody shirt" insults are thrown. Terry Jones' actions fit in that category. (I don't know about the South Park episode - maybe they crossed the line to "bloody shirt" territory, too; maybe not. They love being offensive to everyone.) Those who do such things should be condemned and shunned by their community and the media, but I think the Supreme Court probably has it right. It is not a direct immediate particular incitement and shouldn't be illegal.

If being offensive (even "bloody shirt" offensive) is illegal, then it's too easy (and too tempting) for those in power to use those laws to stifle dissent.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Opinion above subject to revision with age and temperament.)