Thanks for the insights. I agree that "insult, demean, and vilify" do not carry the degree of negativity that I intended. Your words (or Canada's words) are better: "intimidate, harm or terrify." So my past sentence should read: "Might that not also apply to statements that intimidate, harm or terrify other people?" That gets closer to my intent. There is also the issue of provocateurs that Wayne mentions. There are those who deliberately "...bait those who allow themselves to be baited." According to an account of a student who worked in Denmark at the time of the initial publication of the cartoons, the newspaper deliberately baited the immigrant Muslim community...but they had no idea how far repercussions would occur. And apparently there were circumstances to which the newspaper was responding that makes the response understandable, if not excusable. So it's a very complex issue. Yes, political campaigns tend to verge on distortion, insult, and vilification. And this we take to be free speech, if not at its best, at least within the bounds of acceptability. But if we can outlaw yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and outlaw child pornography, might there not be a way to outlaw this kind of provocation that causes such unnecessary harm?