You're allowed to teach your pug to do Nazi salutes. You're not allowed to film yourself saying "gas the Jews" 20 times while showing your dog doing Nazi salutes. [EDIT...and then broadcast this to your YouTube channel]

He went to court and he could have tried a freedom of speech defence but he chose not to.

I must be missing something, where is the distinction here? They seem like equally problematic actions of speech.

One is private to his home. It was the broadcasting that got him the conviction.

I think I'm missing some context. Filming isn't the issue then, broadcasting is? Seems like another asterisk on supposed "rights" that exist in countries that pretend they have them.

An article 10 freedom of expression defence was available to him, and the judge even asked him to make that defence, but he and his legal team chose not to use a freedom of speech defence.

Oi Gov'nor, can't you just scan my brain and tell if I'm lying? That would make life so much easier.