He crowd funded a fortune yet barely offered any defence, beyond "it was a joke meant to annoy his girlfriend", even after the judge explicitly encouraged him to during the trial.
EDIT: The actual ruling appears to be far more reasonable and straightforward than I thought from the reporting at the time:
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha...
You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel.
Finally, before turning to sentence, I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.