So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that

[Chathamization]

201. Again - when the intent is to incite violence. If you choose to ignore that part, his meaning

gets lost completely. Since he talks about the illegality being based on a person's intent to incite violence, says he thinks that was Geller's intent, then talks about proving intent in Geller's case, he clearly doesn't think that insults alone should be illegal, even if they're known to cause violence. It's very clear to anyone reading that without an agenda the poster believes intent to incite violence is a necessary component to deem something like this illegal. When someone goes on to say: "The current standard is speech can only be illegal if it incites imminent lawless action," he says he's glad someone gets it.