There is a difference between condemning an example of free speech

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. The people who killed them were responding to a stimulus...

Repeatedly over the last ten years, it is has been shown that cartoons lampooning the prophet, burning Korans, and other such things are used to whip people into committing acts of violence. Any reasonable human being will deduce that this act will raise a shit-storm.

Back in the 80's in San Diego, a White Supremacist was happily printing crap that led to violence. Civil Suits took his home his money and everything he had. He could print whatever he wanted to, but when his screed hurts others, he was still responsible.

For that matter, why doesn't this film come under the cover of 'Hate Speech?' What is different here from preaching that "Gays are an abominaitonation in he sight of the lord that can not be tolerated in a just society because of their Gay Agenda to take over he country and their attack on children" and "the Innocence of Muslims." Those statements work to demonize a group because they are 100% inaccurate.

And, yes, "The Innocence of Muslims" demonizes Muslims by demonzing the prophet who was the ideal Muslim upon whom everyone's life is supposed to be modeled. Attacking the prophet is attacking every Muslim.

I do not want the U.S. Government trumping up some stupid charge against the makers of this film. Once they do that, they will happily find exceptions to anything they consider wrong speech. (they are doing that anyway.) But when human beings are hurt, they should demand an accounting of irresponsible assholes.