If only we had somebody whose entire job hinged on a detailed knowledge of sentence construction and could therefore decide one way or the other ... oh, wait, we do have somebody like that.
squadops would have us believe that the "60 Minutes" crew were minding their own business in a neighbourhood with a high migrant population when they were coincidentally joined by a notoriously outspoken and aggressive anti-Muslim advocate at time when they just happened to be reporting on the way Sweden's liberal immigration policies were allowing brutal, parasitic thugs into the country and were in turn undermining Swedish values and western democracy. And then without warning or precedent, they were attacked in the middle of the street - but not before they had just enough time to get their cameras out and record the whole thing. squadops would also have everyone believe that anyone who points this out is an advocate for people going around attacking others in the street, even though nobody who pointed this out has ever actually said that. The irony is that you're defending the canera crew on the grounds of free speech, even though there isn't a single definition of free speech that includes provocation or incitement to violence.