However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.
So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference.
A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.
In case you didn't get the memo, here is a primer on how to turn a democracy into a totalitarian system:
1. Invent an external scapegoat ('the enemy')
2. Polarize: Either you're with us or with them. Mediating center positions and compromises belong to 'the enemy'. Argue that you're for the simple, honest-working men and against the elites, who belong to 'the enemy'.
3. As part of point 2, push radical radical positions into the public discourse to erode social control mechanisms. ('Why can't I say X' where X is something despicable, like being a racist, being for for genocide, etc., but dressed into a seemingly legitimate 'arguments' and 'concerns'.)
4. Instil fear of the external enemy and, as much as possible, terror against the internal enemy on the streets. Ideally, there should be bands of people on the streets who mug or kill perceived enemies (e.g. the S.A., Bürgerwehren, death squadrons, etc.).
5. As a result of 3-4, once a certain threshold is reached, public discussion has been radicalized and mediating center positions have been quenched. Voting will become a false dilemma between us and them.
6. Seize power by vote or coup, eradicate the remaining control mechanisms, eradicate free media and put them under state control (in a fight against 'fake media'), eradicate remaining political opponents by abusing the justice system (anti-corruption laws work well).
The idea behind limiting freedom of speech is to prevent 2-3 from reaching a critical threshold that enables 4 & 5.
Sorry if I sound frustrated. But I just think all this anti-free speech is a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms of the rising far-right, not a well thought-out strategy of preserving liberal democracy.
"Fascists", "racists" and other wonderful terms are the same scapegoats, but used by other ideological movements for their own benefit. Everything you describe can be attributed to them as well. What's funny is that they basically give fascists and others power because they use these terms to discredit everyone who opposes them, thus making descent human beings be silent, while the common population slowly becomes angry and the only support among politicians they could find are before mentioned "fascists" (of which many aren't actually fascists at all, they just see potential benefits of expressing such ideas). Don't try to rationalize censorship. Don't paternalize common population. If you limit freedom of speech, you don't limit it for dishonest people, they will always find a way to express their position. Would I open your eyes if I say that Europe just copies the same laws used by authoritarian regimes to suppress opposition? I am not exaggerating. They literally copy Russian and Chinese laws. Do you think their laws say "expressing any critics of the regime is forbidden and is punishable with 3-4 years of jail", etc.? No, they say that "justifying Fascism, terrorism is forbidden". They just label everyone as "Fascist", "terrorist", "radical". If you do believe that Europe does this with good intentions for people, you are naive.
To reply to the unjustified sentiments in the rest of your post and the ad hominem attack: I didn't justify anything, I tried to lay out the reasons that are given as the motivation of limitations of freedom of speech in existing EU countries.
These reasons are part of a much larger puzzle, and there are many more considerations to take into account - especially legal an procedural ones, but also democratic division of power issues - before a meaningful discussion of a particular measure of limiting freedom of speech could even begin.
Your reply is the typical example of the frequent use of false dichotomies in public discussions of such matters. It's resting on the obviously false dichotomy that either there is no free speech at all or absolute, totally unrestricted freedom of speech otherwise. Implicitly, it is probably also on the fallacious slippery slope argument that if you limit freedom of speech in some specific, highly controlled way (e.g. under direct judicial oversight with high hurdles), then the restrictions will still invariably worsen over time. That's highly doubtful, too, and at least you'd expect an argument for it.
Returning to the particular case: Yes, I do believe that Europe does this with good intentions. It's absolutely stupid to think anyone in the EU Parliament or in the EU commissions has bad intentions in general. There is no reason to attribute bad intentions to everyone who disagrees with you. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No, I don't think this particular proposition is good in any way whatsoever, pretty much for the in my opinion correct reasons laid out in the mozilla blog.
Do you have any data to backup "rise", because it sure looks like increased media coverage of fringe groups and not any sort of actual rise in these things.
If you want to protect "everyday people", "free speech at all costs" is the way to do it. Otherwise the people in power will decide what speech is allowed and what isn't.