I hope not. Making capitulation to a threat, implied or explicit would be the exact opposite of freedom of speech. You would not be able to speak out against... anything.
Making a movie about the assassination of the NK leader doesn't imply hate. I'm pretty sure making the movie wasn't about the hate against NK per se, but rather a comedy about the situation in an oppressed country.
If you burn a koran/bible I'm pretty sure we all know what that means: You hate the religion and wan't it to die.
As you can see the difference is that the first one falls under free- and the other under hate-speech.
Now if you ask me, it's still wrong to hate against those who burn "holy books" or whatever. In my opinion hate speech is integral to having free spech, even if it should be watched carefully (I really don't wan't a third reich here in germany) - something that has been lost in the past couple years. But it's important to differenciate between both.
As far as hate speech, in the U.S. hate speech is legal -- as it should be. Being able to express ideas, no matter how repugnant, is the very foundation of the United States. Besides, who determines hate speech? If I say white people are less intelligent than Asians-- is that hate, or my own (distorted) view of the world? It's a very slippery slope to start classifying ideas and banning ideas based in some social norm or the moment.
In the case of the movie, the audience was American moviegoers, with the producers solely intending to amuse the audience.
In the case of the Koran burning, the audience was Muslims worldwide, with full knowledge that the act was under intense media scrutiny, and with forewarning that it would likely result in riots and violence. He chose to act in a way that he knew would result in riots and violence. It wasn't "hate speech." It was an act that was engaged in consciously with knowledge that it would likely provoke a violent response engaged in out of pure malice.
