"The court believes that the Marxist theory adopted by Masch aims not just for reforms but for revolution through violence."
Then adds that the dictatorship of the proletariat "inevitably excludes other population groups".
Then Michael Hopp (of Masch) says this is a misunderstanding and that Marx "emphasized that the means of change must be adapted to the historical situation." But of course doesn't say the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is wrong, because he's a Marxist and he can't. It all reminds me of how the word of God in the bible is reinterpreted for modern sensibilities to be less smity and jealous and more inclusive. "What Marx really meant, in a modern context, is ..."
Writing that is interpreted as wrong or having ideas that aren't modern, does not constitute a harm to a society.
> So yeah, if anything we should wonder why Marx's teachings weren't declared unconstitutional earlier.
Constitutions outline powers. They do not dictate morality. How ideas can be unconstitutional by existence, is something to wonder about.