Not sure I have a definite take.

I only know about this story from what I (briefly) read in this article.

The double standards are condemnable: why would CJ Hopkins be more deserving of a guilty verdict than Stern or Der Spiegel who used similar imagery? He probably isn't. Based solely on the facts are reported in this article, he seems to be in the right to complain about this verdict. If all he did was using some Nazi imagery to get his point across, especially against the government, I'm all for it. Maybe, personally, I don't fully agree with free speech if it is targeted at other individuals possibly causing them personal harm. But I don't care if it is targeted at the government.

For Americans, it is hard to understand European law. Free speech is not absolute in Europe (it also isn't in the US, but let's not go there). Elon Musk is a prime example of someone with such a mindset. He often tweets angrily about EU members being trialed for hate speech. As another example of how US and EU are different: in several EU countries it is also illegal to deny the holocaust. It is hard for me to understand why anyone would deny something that has been documented quite convincingly, but it's a slippery slope where ostracizing these people has made the right-wing stronger and stronger. So I'd rather have open and honest dialogues about such topics rather than use repression tactics. It tends to backfire if one doesn't.

Overall, I think oppression of free speech is a slippery slope similar to how censorship is a slippery slope. Who draws the line as to what is allowed and what isn't? So, as said before, CJ Hopkins seems to be in the right to speak up about this injustice he suffered.

I'm not fluent in legalise, so this not a very structured answer, sorry for that.