That video had nothing to do with anyone being killed. It was an excuse used by the mob to justify their desire for murder and violence, so they would not appear as complete savages.
I've watched that video, and the worst I can describe it is with words: "silly" and "amateurish". It wouldn’t even pass the litmus test for the type of speech that incites violence.
It’s clear that those people were egger and willing to kill Americans and Westerners long before this video was made.
> so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask
It's completely unreasonable to ask the American people to throw out parts of the Constitution to try to appease clearly incompatible religious and juvenile groups half a world away.
The protest, by some accounts, was for the most part not violent. The violence that did happen was a planned and targeted action perpetrated by a highly trained militia exploiting the cover of the protests.
Reinforcements were delayed intentionally, and the second attack clearly accounted for the contingency of a saferoom escape by smoking them out. Indeed, several hours before the attack occurred, it's possible that the area was being scoped out, and pictures taken.
Furthermore, the group that is apparently responsible has been identified, and is being pursued.
If you want to know more, the middle-eastern thread at SomethingAwful is tracking developments.
I don't think that the President being seen to support deliberate antagonism of deep religious prejudices (by parties interested in more and worse war) will help.
You don't see the President publicly supporting strident anti-semitism or holocaust denialism or racism or eugenics, either - though those are taboos for western society more than for predominantly Muslim societies; consider how much Ahmedinejad's casual holocaust denial has done to maintain anger about Iran in the West.
This is crazy hyperbole. Can you please explain how the Administration's request (not demand) to take down the video is even remotely similar to your description?
The first sentence of which has been that the "Innocence of Muslims" video is some type of an abomination (rather than a silly movie), and we should all try not to offend Islam.
Then they end that paragraph with "...but wait, almost forgot, we don't condone the violence either.".
And CNN is doing the same thing with their reporting... Constantly blaming or interjecting the video; one step away from suggesting that the "protesters" are the real victims here.
It's clear there is going to be some type of a discussion about freedom of speech soon and that we Americans have too much of it. That, and the maker of the movie will most likely face prosecution.
It seems to me like the protests are mostly peaceful – and as such, there is nothing wrong with them and freedom of speech really has nothing to do with them.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get
out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ...Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
― Herman Goering
I love anonymity, I really do. I think the ability to have it is vital in any free society. Even so, I cannot deny that it has its downsides, and lowering social inhibitions is one of the more serious ones.
[edit: subject is mob violence leading to murder, etc]
It is one of many aspects that can contribute to violence in situations like these. I wouldn't say it is even a primary cause of the violence in this particular case, but I would say it plays a role.
Context is important. Video clips rarely tell the full story.