A well written piece by Matt Welch at Reason.
He makes some good points in here, and offers a plethora of reasons why President Obama's behaviour on the Benghazi file has been abysmal vis a vis free speech. This article doesn't discuss the murders in great detail.
I agree with his conclusion:
"This mandate to take offense is a recipe not just for the kind of self-censorship Americans already engage in when discussing the historical figure of Muhammad, but also the kind of active censorship that America’s critics, and too many of its academics, are recommending. If Obama ends up serving only one term, his treatment of the Libya attacks and the First Amendment will be an inglorious coda on a failed presidency."
However-I would say that the author has not considered the (rather horrifying) possibility that President Obama is actually not a huge fan of free speech, and the evidence shows that he has a particular sensitivity to offensive speech directed toward Muslims-but to no other discernable group.
I believe that is more the case.
That the President's reaction is not bungled, but rather clearly demonstrates that he is not a First Amendment President.
The horror of Benghazi is further unsettling with that in mind.
Woe unto America.
When a President is a foe, and not a friend of free speech, one can only imagine the uphill battles that liberty faces in the next four years and beyond.