There is no evidence that restricting speech prohibits intolerance, and, in fact, evidence shows that prohibitions on so-called blasphemous speech actually increases intolerance and leads to a wide-range of human rights abuses.
It should not come as a surprise that some of these voices against free speech arise out of higher education. Yet the great irony in this is that our colleges should be places where people live the reality of the potential that is unleashed by free expression.
In his famous letter to the first Jewish synagogue in America, George Washington wrote that the United States government grants "to bigotry no sanction." But because our government does grant to all its citizens freedom of speech, it protects the rights of Pamela Geller.
This is a lesson for the whole world, and Muslims must use this guidance to collectively exhibit a mature response to such terrible acts. Let us join hands to uphold the peaceful teachings of Islam and the Quran.
Muslims should not be so quick to complain when others demonstrate their lack of respect for Islam if they fail to make any real progress towards understanding the societal norms of other nations, in this instance the complexity of free speech rights and traditions in the United States.
What we say, do, and eat has global implications, and on these three major security frontiers we must do better: religious, food and climate security. Each of us has a role to play, and each of us is capable of making a difference.
Salman Rushdie's memoir Joseph Anton rebels against the reduction of The Satanic Verses to an insult to Islam. I agree. But modern liberal democracies, freedom of thought and expression are impossible without the right to offend.
Can we create a benchmark for dialog that fosters consensus without diminishment? Is it possible to communicate in such a way that strengthens our relationships? Can we find our way back to communication that leaves everyone feeling understood and respected?
When the trumped-up passions of "Innocence of Muslims" cool, burnt-out buildings will be repaired, diplomatic dances will reboot. But who will stand up for the freedom to disbelieve, to criticize and to mock?
Deploring the "excesses of free speech" may be a wise move tactically but, in the long term, it jeopardizes freedom of information, which is a prerequisite for political, economic and social development.
The Muslims who murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens were purportedly defending the name of Prophet Muhammad. But they have done the exact opposite of their intention: tarnished the name of the Prophet in the eyes of the few non-Muslims.
Those of us who believe in the right to say what you think without being threatened can only show that there are some beliefs that we cherish, too. We can show that we believe in the right of clever writers to write good books, and the right of stupid fantasists to make bad films.