(S)he is probably touching the problem when all parties that are supposed to be normal would vote for this extreme legislation, and only extremist ones would oppose it; i.e. the problem will be the lack of choice in that matter, caused by parties themselves; a situation similar leading to the election of current US president where many people just voted "in jest" due to not being heard and not having any means to voice their concerns. I am frankly not sure how to address this beside starting an own party and gaining required % support to get into parliament.

While I agree with your general point, I think it's wrong to characterise this as "not being able to post your dick pic to Facebook or whatever". This isn't about posting memes; it's about freedom of expression. It's about preventing, say, the Hungarian government labelling George Soros as a terrorist, and subsequently prevent you from making statements online that agree with him.

Sure, suppressing freedom of expression is not a good way to suppress freedom of expression - but this is a serious issue.

(Though, as mentioned elsewhere, it's still early in the process, and hopefully the regulation can be altered before it is passed.)

A charitable reading of this would be that the grandfather is sharing Voltaire's view: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

you possibly misunderstood the difference between anger and intelligence? a system that uses technology to increase surveillance and a fear mongering language (seriously "terrorism"??) needs to be stopped with every means possible. Especially if they're sneaking it in so that you can't legally fight it. How else are you going to fight them? Buttons and a leaflet campaign? Come on!

> needs to be stopped with every means possible

Nothing needs to be done by every means possible. This isn’t worth vaporising cities over, for one example. Or fascism, for another.

When people start thinking that the ends justify the means, they forget that outside of maybe death, and people still argue about that, ends are just narrative conveniences and there is only means. And you can't very well have means justifying means, can you?

> you can't very well have means justifying means

Yes you can. They’re called instrumental values and goals.

Things like this are clear steps on a road. Article 13 was the camel nose through the tent. One could call it drastic at the time but shooting every loser involved in the Beer Hall Putsch for treason would have saved the world a lot of trouble. A lot of them were purged anyway.

Sure, but "every means possible" is a very clear shortcut directly to the end of that road.

> needs to be stopped with every means possible

... such as groups that want to increase surveillance and use fear mongering language, and will make it so you can't legally fight it.

Yeah, that makes total sense. No better way to deal with authoritarians reaching for power than to elect authoritarians into power so they can deal with the wannabe authoritarians in their authoritarian ways.

as I said elsewhere, I'm not talking about electing anyone into power. I'm talking about not condemning the action when somebody will come along and start strategically taking people in power out (this happened before and will happen again as long as the world stays on this trajectory it's only a question of time). I tend to cheer for the Stauffenberg personalities - even it's illegal. Sorry if that offends so many of you that you have to downvote the fuck out of me.

No, what you actually wrote in the other posts - such as "I would cheer for fascists" - is what got them downvoted, not what you now claim to have meant, because the voters are not clairvoyant.

> would even cheer for fascists

That is what you said.