People who say that Bacille could only have wanted to incite violence have no idea what they're talking about. Firstly, we do not even now whether the attack on the embassy was motivated by the film or if the film was merely a pretext to cover-up a pre-meditated plan to take out the ambassador. In addition, the other protests in Egypt probably had to do with other factors and grievances than just this one film. Secondly, to say that airing an offensive film about one's religion constituting incitement is to strip the word "incitement" of any practical meaning and suddenly casts a lot of expression under the pale of censorship. Bacille may or may not have wanted violence, but to assume that: A. that violence was the inevitable response and B. that this may constitutes incitement are ludicrous. These protesters were reasonably capable of nonviolently responding to the movie. They could have simply done what the millions of people who have their religions insulted do on a daily basis: ignore it or respond to it in a manner that does not involve violence. The protesters alone chose not to do this, and they alone are responsible. I have no sympathy for those who respond to sophomoric insults with violence. If we are going to outlaw certain forms of speech because they might be offensive to some troglodytes, we would have to ban a lot of things, and it would not do a whole lot. This radical fringe is going to hate America, and giving up our most basic institutions will not stop them. Many of the people complaining about how the West's fight against radical Islamists changed its culture now want us to change our laws to ban hurtful speech, and they fail to see the irony. Some even want to go as far as charging Bacille for making the film, although this does not constitute any real crime. Charging Bacille would only be a fruitless, unconstitutional gesture.