Thanks for expanding more on your reasons for including each of the examples.
> Though I don't think the reason you left these out is because you're trying to mislead: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections".
Yes, I agree that every summary will necessarily leave parts out. I disagree with your editorial judgment on how to summarize these incidents as evidence to whether the courts are going too far:
- Police horse and dog: missing context that the law was changed almost a decade ago to remove "insulting" as a criterion because these instances were so absurd.
- Nazi dog: did not mention that it's a public video, did not mention the quotes which were most important to the court ruling it "Hate Speech". You're focused entirely on "it's a joke" as an explanation to why the quotes are okay in context.
- Lyrics: did not mention the text of the lyrics, only the fact that they were quotes. When you quote something, you're giving it a different context. For example, quoting "I'll be back" means different things when one's at a grocery vs when one's stalking someone at their house. Snap Dogg (not Snoop, though that mistake's super understandable) singing the lyric in a song is different from quoting the lyric in a conversation is different from quoting just that lyric in isolation.
- Anti-religious: the venue mattered because it plays a part in whether regular behavior is harassment. This sounds like an honest mistake, but I think the venue drastically changes the situation. One saying "I think X sucks" is different when: one's with some friends; one's discussing X's work with acquaintances; one's on a panel with X at a conference; one's at X's wedding; one sends mail to X's house.
> Whether or not people get angry is immaterial to my point: your focus was "why people were angry", and mine was "how absurd the incidents are to the sensibilities of citizens of a country with robust speech protections".
I think that you left out context which changes "how absurd" these cases are. The first 2 were essentially fixed. The last 3 were all prosecuted under "Hate Speech", but I think you left out the important aspects of those cases which made them count as "Hate Speech". Sometimes the reason why something is illegal is patently absurd and doesn't really to be addressed in the summary, but I don't think this context could be avoided when trying to claim that these 3 speech restrictions were absurd.