Commentators have noted that Mideast protestors complain that the United States government doesn't do enough to stop blasphempous films from going on the Internet or being exported. Individuals in authoritarian countries don't seem to understand that individual people express themselves without the approval of government, even without any third party collaboration. This fits into my concerns about downstream liability and SOPA.
This is a difficult concept for people who don't publish by themselves on the Internet to get. At one time, back in 1997, I even thought that adult-id filters (as mandatory) could solve the problem of inappropriate content for minors, but by late 1998, after COPA had passed, I understood how the idea of spontaneous publication with the prospect that search engines will find you, really works.
The Washington Post today discussed YouTube's willingness to block the "offending film" (or excerpts from it) in specific countries, after the White House approached it about "terms of service" analysis. "Clear and present danger" in a specific country can be a reason to block a particular item. There is precedence for this, as pro-Nazi materials are blocked in Germany where they are illegal.
Police have questioned one of the producers of the film about possible "supervised probation" violations in Internet use.
However, protestors overseas seem to be implying that the US isn't "doing enough" in allowing the video to go out in the first place, and seem not to understand the separation between individual and collective speech.