How 2 get so many things wrong in one sentence 101.
Your argument assumes that the video was aimed at a specific group of an ethnic group- The video portrays no intention to do so. The video in fact makes crystal clear that it is, for all purposes, a joke played on his girlfriend, which he thought to share with others.
That’s not a “prank bro”. It would be if his girlfriend would have taken issue with it. But she didn’t.
Instead, who took issue were some others. And the literal case is built upon the fact that he’s guising anti-semite views under the act in the video.
Like what, lmao?
To put this in perspective, if I happened to talk about a matter x and somebody took offense to it, according to you I should be prosecuted because the other side interpreted some foreign message in my words?
that’s literal toxic masculinity level conspiracy theory but ok.
There wasn’t a shred of concrete evidence on the matter. They couldn’t find a single occasion where he was directly acting to incite harm towards a group of people. The entire sentencing was literally based solely on his associations and what a third party had interpreted from the video.
That’s what makes it weak.
Do you have any actual proof about this?