Where does one draw the line with regards to freedom of expression and supporting a cause that involves violence?

On February 15, Maoists struck the Eastern Frontier Rifles’ Shilda camp in West Bengal's West Midnapore district, killing 24 jawans. “We have attacked the camp and this is our answer to [Union home minister P] Chidambaram's Operation Green Hunt," Maoist leader Kishenji declared. "Unless the Centre stops this inhuman military operation, we are going to answer in this way.”

Recently, St Xavier’s College, Mumbai, held a lecture series in memory of Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy’s wife Anuradha. The first such series was held at the Mumbai University's Fort campus last year. Considering the Maoist threat to India, the lectures have stirred a controversy with some people accusing the organisers of glorifying violence.

Ghandy, a member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) politburo, was in charge of spreading the Maoist influence in urban areas and of the party's publishing wing. Ghandy and Anuradha Shanbag, a staunch activist herself, had dedicated themselves to the cause of tribal and women’s issues, trade unionism, and campaigns for the rights of the so-called lower castes, even deciding not to have children. While Anuradha died of celebral malaria in 2009, Ghandy was arrested on September 21 last year in New Delhi and has been in police custody since.

Do you think holding lectures on the Maoists and discussing their means of protest glorifies violence? Where does one draw the line with regards to freedom of expression and supporting a cause that involves violence?