No, the why is only important insofar as to find ways to mitigate or prevent it from happening again. As far as addressing restitution is concerned, it doesn't mean a whole lot. If I knocked over your vase, the restitutional act would be to replace your vase or pay you money. Examining the particular events which led me to knock over the vase is only important to check whether I knocked over your vase for the sake of preventing additional damage or prevent harm to you. Outside of those two exceptions, the particular reasons why I knocked over your vase (I was too clumsy, I had too much to drink, I didn't see the vase, I thought the vase was more sturdy) doesn't alter the proper restitutional act of replacing the vase.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I guess I fundamentally disagree. If someone shoved you into the vase it would be very different, even if you were the one to knock it over. If I was hosting a big party and we were all getting drunk and I'd placed my vase near the dancefloor and you slip and knock it over, then that would also be different to me from the situations you describe. If you were just dancing wildly and knocked it over that would still be different to me. If you were just visiting and knocked over a vase of mine on accident then I would probably not feel like you would have to replace it. Accidents happen and things exist to be used until they can't.
Separating an action from what caused it seems like causes more harm than anything else.
In this scenario I'd say the broadcaster is the party host who placed a vase right next to a bunch of drunken dancers. Should probably have censored the slurs instead of "free palestine".