Yes, these laws can get abused very quickly if they don't fit the narrative of the ruling parties in Europe. However, how are you going to make sure what is hate-speech and what is not? Like the first example - when is supporting Palestine activists normal and when does it border on supporting terrorism? And when is boycotting Israel OK and when is is antisemitism? Hard to say and that is why these laws are only effective if you have an authority which can really determine this. Also, what is so left-wing about supporting Palestine? In many Central European countries far-right activists are also supporting Palestine because they hate Israel. And their messages are not left-wing. Also, don't forget, that left wing and far left can be as dangerous and filthy as far right. In short - I don't think these laws are effective unless the law lists specifically all the situation when it applies, otherwise it can be applied to whatever situation based on who is applying the law.

Some of the examples quoted are a bit extreme (some seem normal to me, calling for soldiers to die is nasty).

The main thesis of the article seems to be that hate speech is by definition a right wing phenomenon, so by definition shouldn’t apply to progressive statements, even if they are extreme. Well... really?