It's words...on a sign outside in public. People assaulted him with water and soil but didn't get arrested. What was on his sign was irrelevant. The justificat

It's words...on a sign outside in public. People assaulted him with water and soil but didn't get arrested. What was on his sign was irrelevant. The justification by the judge that convicted him essentially said he was responsible for peoples' reaction because they got offended by his sign. That is a complete reversal of logic, and means that you can wrap the definition of "hate speech" over anything that sufficiently large group of people find offensive/insulting.