Hmmm… you should look up the origin of the quote about “fire”. It was used to justify stripping US citizens of their citizenship and sending them back where they came from, for exercising their first amnedment rights. IIRC the guy the Supreme Court turfed was urging US soldiers to not fight in some foreign war in 1917.
I forget which supreme later said it was the worst decision of his career.
I guess the question, as with any fighting words, is “was it directly meant to start a fight”? If the manipulator then forwarded the video to every turbanned red-nech he could find, then yes. If he posted it, for exampl on YouTube and people had to request to see it, then how is he creating a provocation? Would not all the people who forwarded an email “Ahmed, it’s Sadam. You gotta watch this…” be equally guilty of the provocation or more so?
It’s along the lines of: if you say “don’t fight in an unjust war”, that’s freedom of speech. If you say “disobey your commands, refuse to serve” that’s inciting mutiny.
If you tell Joe exactly what his mother was, expect a punch in the nose or worse. If he hears that you told someone else the same story, then you were not provoking him.
There is, in fact, a well-know piece of art called “piss-Christ”, just to make the contrast of religious tolerance extremes even more stark. In this case, the artist collected a vatful of his own over time.