> And who gets to decide which ones are prohibited and the standards used?
In Germany's case, a bench of Constitutional judges, after Guardians of the Constitution informed the parliament that they will prosecute an organization deemed a threat to a free and democratic society. So again, a proper independent judicial instance whose mission is to examinate evidences and make a choice after a fair trial.
Regarding Antifa its more complicated for there is decision-making is distributed. There is no proper leader or leading-commitee, just a bunch of folks working together (and sometimes using dubious means), pretty much like Anonymous.
Also no, wishing a ethnical cleansing is no regular opinion. We aren't debating about budget or public service, but of literal state-sanctioned genocide.
> "So again, a proper independent judicial instance whose mission is to examinate evidences and make a choice after a fair trial."
So if an "independent judicial instance" decided that you or your organization should not be allowed to criticize an election result or election process because doing so would be "a threat to a free and democratic society", you would accept that?
In Germany's case, a bench of Constitutional judges, after Guardians of the Constitution informed the parliament that they will prosecute an organization deemed a threat to a free and democratic society. So again, a proper independent judicial instance whose mission is to examinate evidences and make a choice after a fair trial.
Regarding Antifa its more complicated for there is decision-making is distributed. There is no proper leader or leading-commitee, just a bunch of folks working together (and sometimes using dubious means), pretty much like Anonymous.
Also no, wishing a ethnical cleansing is no regular opinion. We aren't debating about budget or public service, but of literal state-sanctioned genocide.