I think politicians ought to be scared of their populace, and they are the ones that need to be under constant surveillance. And not vice versa.
I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.
That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals". Even just playing such word games is lending support, and that's even more than condoning something.
I have to admit I'd have difficulty to decide between voting for them (which I'd consider actual support) or accepting laws as described in this post. Thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice, yet.
You instead are talking about how not restricting speech would also allow fascists freedom of speech, which is something else. That makes sense on the top level or attached to other comments, but in this "timeline", the boat has sailed, and "cheering for fascists" in preference to this proposal is what is on the table.
Of course cheering on fascists is unlikely to to lead to more freedom of speech, so in that sense I don't think it's a truly worthwhile course of action.