I'm disappointed to see you type that, Luis.
Megan Kelly can explain it much better than I can articulate it.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoaS0Zg1SYk
There are several issues at play here. O'Reilly covers them all.
The would be assassins got what they deserved. O'Reilly is right.
Geller has a Constitutionally-protected right to do what she did. O'Reilly agrees and neither he or I are arguing that there should be any government action taken to curtail her right.
However, the Constitution cannot possibly protect you from the possible consequences of you exercising your constitutionally-protected rights.
I have a constitutionally-protected right to put on a Klan outfit and go stand on a street corner in Baltimore's inner city, but I am going to get my ass kicked into next week for doing so. If those who kicked my ass are caught, they will be prosecuted under the law.
This is not about free speech because the issue of free speech is whether or not the government can curtail the free exercise of it. All it can do is punish those who engage in illegal activities in response to someone's exercise of the right to speak freely.
Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is wrong. It is also constitutionally-protected. Had I attempted to kill the artist, I would be wrong as well.
The crap that the Westboro Baptists do is constitutionally-protected, and if we showed up at a funeral and kicked their asses, we would be prosecuted because we were wrong.
This is not about freedom of speech because she exercised her freedom of speech, free from government interference.
"Congress shall make no law..."
Congress made no laws stopping Geller.
Geller engaged in an action explicitly designed to elicit the exact response that she got. She freely discharged her rights, and the authorities protected her.
That's how things work, however, it didn't make what she did right.
The Reverend Franklin Graham explains it best.