Where is the consistency?

The LA Times reported in September of 2012:

Internet video giant YouTube has found itself drawn into a global drama being played out in violent Mideast protests over a 14-minute video trailer for Innocence of Muslims, raising questions about the website's responsibilities as the Internet's preeminent distributor of video.

The trailer has been blamed for inciting violence in Libya, Egypt and Yemen. Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.

Later, UN Ambassador Susan Rice characterized the video as "hateful, offensive, and heinous" and again blamed the video (absurdly) as causing the attacks on our Benghazi embassy:

Rice told Fox’s Chris Wallace “what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful, very offensive video.” She told CNN’s Candy Crowley, “There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet… That sparked violence in various parts of the world…” She told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi and many other parts of the region… was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated…” She gave similar answers to NBC’s David Gregory and CBS’s Bob Schieffer.

Subsequently, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the writer, producer, and promoter of Innocence of Muslims, was jailed:

On 27 September 2012, U.S. federal authorities arrested Nakoula in Los Angeles charging eight counts of probation violation. Prosecutors alleged that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film ... None of the charges relate to his use of the Internet [that's rich!]. Following a hearing before a judge, Nakoula was ordered to jail without bail, with the judge citing probation violations including lying to probation officials, "danger to the community" and "lack of trust in the defendant."

Today, President Obama took quite a different tone when speaking of the movie The Interview, a fictional portrayal of Americans assassinating North Korean leader Kim Jong Un:

We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States. Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don’t like or news reports that they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended. ... I wish they had spoken to me first. I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.

So, it is an exercise of freedom of speech for Americans to make movies about assassinating a foreign leader and we should not be intimidated by parties who are offended by and respond violently against such movies, but videos disparaging Muhammad are hateful, offensive, and heinous and should be removed from YouTube?

Where is the consistency? Obama is correct to insist that Sony has the right to make whatever satirical movie it wants and to urge Sony not to be intimidated by Kim Jong Un. Why, then, did Obama and Susan Rice not come to the defense of Nakoula in the wake of Benghazi and insist on his right to make whatever movie he wanted to make about Muhammad?