There is a huge difference. Saying that the video is just about a person and not about a group of people is incorrect in this particular context. Muslims have a huge affection, emotional attachment and love for their prophet which you wouldn't observe in followers of other religions. Unfortunately western cultures don't understand these deep ties and consider mockery here equivalent to any other common mockery. Although there are some other sensitive topics, such as Holocaust, which are treated responsibly in the west, but for some reason the topic under question is always given free hand in the name of freedom of speech rather than classifying it as hate speech.

Apples and oranges.

Mohammed can most similarly be likened to Jesus or Moses, not the Holocaust.

Mohammed, Jesus and Moses, among other religious historical figures may or may not have existed. There really is no proof. All apparently were responsible for miracles in the eyes of people back in the day with little understanding of science, so it's possible that if any of those three existed, after you discount the growing of "tall tales" that what they are credited with performing are natural phenomena.

Any criticism of denial of any of those three people is very tolerated in the west. I would feel far more comfortable saying Jesus was a pedophile or Moses was a cock smoker than blurting out similar trollery about Mohammed. The reason why has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity, but with the completely irrational and sometimes disproportionately violent response from people who would be offended by such a statement (or at least the imagined expectation of such).

This isn't to say that fundamental Christians aren't capable of such asshattery. They certainly are. Photos of klan members, burned crosses and lynchings are proof of such.

The Holocaust on the other hand is historical fact, not myth, and an act of genocide. Denial of it would be similar to denying the genocide in Darfur or the Tienanmen Square massacre.

Ones degree of affection and emotional attachment to a subject largely irrelevant except insofar as how easy it makes to troll that person.

This is trollery, not hate speech. If I say something about a group of people and condemn them, it's hate speech. If I make a mockery of something that would offend that group it is trolling.

The makers of this video have admitted the purpose of the video was to denigrate Islam. Shouldn't that be enough in itself to classify this as hate speech. Also this issue bring a very interesting point. How google make these type of judgment. Do they have legal experts viewing these videos and making decision as such?

There is a lot of important issues being brought up as a result. How do we identify hate speech, who makes that kind of a judgement, what's the role of distribution channels in these cases, how much power the government has, is there a bigger responsibility for unseen cases?

Do you think Monty Python films should also be classified as hate speech?

There is a difference between making fun of an religion (Islam), and incite violence or prejudicial action against a group who are practicing the religion (Muslims).

Interesting. That changes things. Do you have a citation of what the video's authors said?

"Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location....he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in...

If "condemning" a religion is "hate speech", then a substantial portion of the commentary on liberal, skeptic, and atheist sites would qualify.