I think back in WW2 (correct me if I'm wrong) 'Uncle Sam' punished people for loose talk, which may have revealed the US' plans to other countries.
Toward the events, obviously blind hate toward the speaker was rather, well, blind, and shows the lack of knowledge of the Middle East and religious intolerance. Obviously, if you believe one religion, you don't believe another, but unless your religion is intolerance you should learn to at least respect religions and the individuals decision to rationalize their beliefs. Disgust of all Muslims is a bit irrational, as it accounts for a majority of the population in Asia and not all Muslims wish death to the US (I know a few friendly Muslims myself).
Funny how all the outspoken people account for everyone of their label... I don't wonder if all of the Christians are labeled ignorant hypocrites who share pictures of 'God' on Facebook and write horrible poetry.
When it borders on hate speech, why should one's freedom of speech be allowed? Don't give me the ridiculous reason that it's a personal freedom and hence it needs to be allowed. You're infringing on the freedom of the person you're slurring, so what makes your freedom more important and acceptable?
I feel like any speech should be rational and reasonable, and not just hating on a generalization. There's not any way to really silence the idiots without silencing wise, so either you must silence both or encourage people to reason a lot, a lot. That still doesn't ensure that the hate speech will be minimized, but it may or may not solve the problem.
Surely, criticism is never a bad thing (it's more how it's received) (also, separate from straight-up insults, but that's just plain ignorance), but if you're making a generalization that surely not all of the labelled fit under, then there's a problem. There may be reasons, but they're based on outspoken events that don't account for the whole of the population - sort of like the video: I'm certain that not everybody feels the same way as the director felt (I didn't watch it either :P). In the same way, if the radical Islamists were actually attacking the Embassies because of the video, they were making a generalization that all Americans must think like that, which obviously isn't true, and in which case speaking out against that is sort of redundant and contradictory to the very thing they were speaking out against. I'm sort of guessing that they weren't, though, since it's probably not just coincidence that these attacks took place on 9/11 and they happened to know exactly were the ambassador was being hidden. Just a thought.