In light of the violent protests in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and other parts of North Africa and the Middle East, some are arguing that the Innocence of Muslims video is far from an innocent exercise of freedom of speech. But others feel that the video itself, however vile it may be, is protected under the first amendment of the Constitution as a form of free speech.

What’s an American to do?

Former Governor Mitt Romney argued that the individuals who created the film “have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.” In other words, the filmmakers had the right to express their views through the video, but that does not necessarily translate into the action itself being “right” in a moral sense.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States government had nothing to do with the video and that she personally found it: “disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.”  

Clinton also explained that the United States does not limit its citizens’ right to speak freely, no matter how “distasteful” an individual’s opinion may be, but she also acknowledged that other nations may not share this view with regard to allowing such extensive room for self-expression.

This, of course, is an important statement. Perhaps part of the reason why some individuals in other nations are so angry is because they themselves are not accustomed to the democratic principle of free expression and therefore do not fully understand how America can allow anyone to publicly display such a terrible thing.

However, Clinton argues that this lack of full understanding does not condone hostile behavior, as she adds: “there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable…we all must draw the line at violence.”

Google is apparently drawing a line even closer to home. The Internet giant, which owns YouTube, decided of its own accord to temporarily restrict access to the video in Libya and Egypt in an attempt to alleviate some of the tension. But the company also confirmed that the video is within the bounds of YouTube’s guidelines and therefore is still accessible in other countries.

The arguments surrounding the video with respect to free speech persist. Is the video like shouting “fire!” in a movie theatre? Or is this simply the case of a few people with strong opinions expressing their thoughts, however awful they may be, legally under the Constitution?

Whatever side you may take, hopefully everyone can agree that such a film certainly cannot be used as an excuse for the belligerence that came about in reaction to it.

We here at USDemocrazy hope you feel free to express your own views on this issue.