1) Stephen Boisson's language was found to be relatively mild compared to the kind of messages employed to set the hate-speech standard.
2) It was noted that the case was about a single letter, not an extended sequence of hate-speech messages:
...which is odd, because I was under the impression that the letter was republished several times afterwards, perhaps on the Concerned Christians website.
3) The kicker seems to be that the assault on a gay youth--which supposedly came about as a result of the letter, and was committed by (among others) an associate of Mr. Boisson who had been exposed repeatedly to the contents of the letter--is treated as alleged, and the evidence drawn from its circumstances as here say. I was under the impression from the original HRC case that none of this (other than the implications for Mr. Boisson's case) was in doubt.
4) In any case, the judge found that the law was misapplied in Boisson's case, and not that it was invalid. A reference was made to the Lemire constitutional challenge, about which the judge wroteSo obviously that case won't serve as anyone's anti-HRC silver bullet.