One of the few legal cases I recognize by name: Near vs Minnesota

[eppur_se_muova]

In which the SCOTUS ruled that prior restraint of publication constituted censorship, and was thus unconstitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota

later reaffirmed by the Pentagon Papers case.

The person(s) responsible for the deliberatively provocative film, The Innocence of Muslims, could not, by law, be enjoined from producing or distributing that film, regardless of the potential for harm. Once it was released, however, he became immediately liable for any consequences arising therefrom, including both criminal and civil charges. The surviving families of the victims, and the State Department, may very well hold him liable for damages precipitated by his actions, even if they were not forseeable in precise detail. He knew he was creating a dangerous situation, and did so recklessly. The consequences are his.

(It should be noted that the attack on the Libya consulate were apparently NOT a consequence of protests or riots, but a deliberate, pre-planned, organized assault.)

[frazzled]

1. They can't be enjoined by the government

They can be enjoined by Google/YouTube, which enjoins the dissemination and publication of thousands if not millions of videos each day, and has shown extremely poor judgment here.

Read their Terms of Service: they could have refused to put this video up (as they did to my brother-in-law's totally innocuous 65th Birthday video, for reasons that are opaque to all.)

[trouble.smith]

2. Yes! We must punish those infidels for their blasphemy

and make examples out of them for all the other infidels to see. how fucking progressive.

[eppur_se_muova]

3. Progressives do not shy from legal recourse ...

most of the victories of the progressive movement have come only in the wake of legal challenges, so progressives hardly disdain the courts. I'm not sure you actually recognize what "progressive" means.

I am not suggesting anyone be punished for "blasphemy", as any one who actually reads the OP can confirm. I am suggesting the filmmaker is as guilty of creating a dangerous, even lethal situation, as someone who shouts "fire!" in a crowded in a crowded theater -- something which is clearly not protected as free speech.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Granted, only ignorant, superstitious yahoos would have rioted and killed over something so trivial and inconsequential. But knowing such yahoos are likely to do exactly that makes it inexcusable to provoke them just for shits and giggles, as the filmmaker apparently did. And when the consequences proved lethal, the person who instigated the whole affair cannot be held blameless when his actions were deliberately and premeditatedly designed to provoke.

Bottom line: If this video had not been released, people would still be alive. No film is worth that, and never will be, whatever the circumstances.

[trouble.smith]

4. I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong

Islam needs to lighten the fuck up and join the 21st century. I'll be god damned if I give up an iota of my freedom because they can't or won't and I am absolutely disgusted that any "American" would even entertain the notion of APPEASING violent radicals which is exactly what you and others are suggesting. You're just appallingly shamefully wrong.

Questioning the tenets of a religion is nowhere close to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater and; furthermore, congress has no authority to provide special protections for one religion over another. If they jump into this water, they will irevocably wreck this country. There's no way the SCOTUS would allow it.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. You're welcome to your delusions. nt

[Odin2005]

6. Wanting freedom of speech is never a delusion.