How? She said those things, in context they're fine.
But if the law decides that context is irrelevant then she's royally fucked.
I agree it's a frightening precedent to pronounce that 'context is irrelevant' - though I do think that man had it coming. But only because of the slippery slope that could potentially lead to a loss of all sense - and not because the two cases are the same thing at all.
When the judge in the pug case said 'context is irrelevant' they were referring to the fact that this was a joke - the man didn't actually mean that he wanted to 'gas the jews' - he said it in jest. The judge ruled that this wasn't good enough - it shouldn't have been said, regardless of how it was meant. It was offensive.
That is different to splicing up videos and editing bits out. Taking someone else's words out of context and changing the meaning is completely different to being told that the words you actually said we're unacceptable, regardless of why you said them. The point is Linda Bellos didn't say what the edited video claimed she had. That man did say 'gas the jews'.
If what you're are claiming could happen could actually happen - then I could end up in front of a court because I have now typed 'gas the jews' three times. That is ridiculous.
It, however, would not be ridiculous if I posted just those three words onto this thread - as my own words - and then claimed 'they were only a joke.' That could be perceived as incitement to violence, racial hatred and antisemitism - and 'it's only is a joke' is a cop out, that no one would find acceptable.
I think in this case, 'context' is being used in different contexts - if that makes sense. 
In the pug case the context is why it was said.
In Linda Bellos's case the context is what she said. The 'why' cannot truly be proved, as their reasoning is in the speaker's head - so if an onlooker is offended, it was offensive. The 'what' can easily be proved - and no one is responsible for the way someone else edits their words.