Exposing Progressives: Free Speech & Delivery Systems

In the wake of the Aurora, CO, theater massacre, Progs told us that the problem was not the movie, but the delivery system, i.e., guns; therefore, we should have more gun control laws to protect people from lunatics like James Holmes.  In the aftermath of the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi, Progs have told us that the problem was speech, i.e., an admittedly blasphemous (if you are a Muslim), but otherwise amateurish movie, not the delivery system, i.e., radical Islam or even the internet.

Why?  Is it because speech is fine for Hollywood and Progs want more gun control so using the actions of a gun-wielding Joker to further their aims is a win-win?  Yes.  

But, when a Coptic Christian insults the "Prophet Mohammed" (and the administration falsely accuses the filmmaker of being the proximate cause), why do Progs not stand up for his free speech and attack the delivery system (if one were to believe that the youtube video were, indeed, the cause), which is radical Islam and/or the internet?  

Can it be that neither, of course, would further their interests of 1) believing that radical Islam is not a threat; 2)  blaming the West's "imperialism, colonialism and oppression of third world peoples;" 3) moral relativism (All religions are equal.  If both Mormonism and Islam were criticised in a magazine, would your rather wake up in Provo or Peshawar?); 4) undermining and destablising Western capitalism; and, 5) the enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Absolutely.  

Is it cowardice, hypocrisy, and evidence of their double standards and openness to "suppressive tolerance"?   Definitely.