All it took was a 14-minute film trailer – and a low-quality one at that – to trigger violent protests in the Middle East and cause the death of a number of people, including a US ambassador.

The trailer depicts the prophet Muhammad as a fraud and a child-molester, among other unflattering characteristics. It is a deliberately offensive film, one that sets out to insult, and possibly provoke, the religious beliefs of Muslims.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, it has been harshly condemned, including by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and by the US government. The American condemnation, however, has failed to allay protesters, which have largely congregated around US diplomatic buildings, and attacked them on occasion.

That the film’s producers used their freedom of expression irresponsibly is an easy argument to make. But the US should not – and by all accounts, cannot – attempt to appease protestors by acting against the film’s producers.

After all, blasphemy charges rarely make it to court in western countries, although Malta is something of an exception, given our history of prosecuting people dressing up as religious figures. Laws against defaming religions would have likely made the producers of the film liable for prosecution in this country.

Not so in the US, however, which constitutionally protects offensive material as long as one does not engage in illegal acts or directly incite others to do so. As a consequence, statements that deny the holocaust, – a crime in several European states – are blatantly racist or vilify a religion can be made without legal repercussions.

Interpretations of freedom of speech may vary across democratic countries – as the differences between Maltese and American law show – but their reaction would not be satisfactory to the most radical factions behind the ongoing protests. There would invariably be calls for harsher sentences than the ones democratic countries – which largely condemned the jailing of Pussy Riot band members for what was, effectively, a blasphemous performance in a cathedral – would be willing to impose.

For numerous reasons – including factions that capitalise on such incidents for political gain – material which is insulting to Muslims can trigger a disproportionate response, if it manages to reach an international audience. And for numerous reasons – again, political gain factors in – people will continue to create such material.

Trying to stop the latter will be a futile attempt, as the damage will already be done by the time the issue gains coverage, even though such material does little to help the delicate process of developing closer links between western and Muslim countries.

But behind nearly every violent protest are people inciting them, and it is doubtful that the same people would not be able to find another excuse to mobilise the masses if need be. That the incidents have happened – including in the countries which deposed their dictators last year – is a reminder that extremism is still an issue that needs to be tackled, and that it will be no easy task to do so.