Unfortunately, there is a fundamental flaw with his reasoning. The extremists who actually conduct such attacks have no intention of backing down if their demands are met, so once the video was out, someone was going to die anyways.
Instead, they made a public "request" whose intent was to put pressure on Google outside it's normal "review process".
I guess Obama could also have written an anonymous letter to the editor instead of having a speech announcing and advocating his jobs programs. But that's not how the real world works. Obama openly and strongly advocating X, Y and Z is not tyranny.
I would say this is more of a security issue. If the protests had been peaceful, and had there been no deaths, I doubt this request would have ever been made.
So USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists but does what they want as long as there's a threat of violence?
From Collins, via dictionary.com - "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal". Seems to fit?
IMO the question at hand is whether as soon as some group threatens violence the USA kowtow. This appears to be the case here - the USA administration intervening in the free speech of a citizen in order to further the aims of a group because that group has threatened (and acted) violently.