I think that the restrictions would act as a deterrent for the people who made the film. And if they predicted that their film would be seen as being illegal I do think that their actions to evade the law would harm its exposure. Driving them into possibly added illegal actions isn't great but it does further disassociate them from the state.
If the restrictions don't work as a successful deterrent then they've been a waste of time, but then they're also not harmed civil liberty anyway. Nothing is really at expense if people ignore the law anyway. A powerless law might as well not be a law.
Obviously everything can't be screened. And the radicals who react to anything anyway (as I said about the Danish cartoons etc.) won't go away. But I do think that the borderline morons, who have been motivated along with the full-time idiots would respond positively in the future
to seeing that USA law actually did something. The effect isn't immediate. The embassy in Benghazi would still have been attacked but all the shit happening right now might have been lessened if the film maker being arrested for questioning was broadcasted worldwide.
Edit: And Miburo this wouldn't be partisan. Sufficient incitement towards any group would count.
Basically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitem..._racial_hatred
Even if the film doesn't tell
people to e.g. attack Muslims, a court can still find it inflammatory.