Thank you for the article link! I was able to get the core concepts of the article, though reading a computer translation of a legal system I'm not familiar with surely had me missing a bit of nuance.
I agree with the author's points at the end, that ZDF is not required to platform people they aren't comfortable with. I don't know who ZDF is, who owns them, or if they ownership normally leans one direction politically or another, but I think it's fair if they didn't want to air the song. Basically, their station, their rules. They didn't do anything to try and stop the artist from releasing it on his own, and they didn't seem to even speak against the actual content of the song that I have seen, they just didn't want to be the ones broadcasting it, and I think that is fair.
I can't speak to if anything they said is illegal, since I'm not familiar with German laws, the author listed what laws where the ones in question and seemed to objectively conclude the lyrics fell into legal grey area since all art if of a subjective nature and people will find different meanings from the same art or the same words.
The part about determining who is a protected group was the real interesting part for me. We struggle here in America as well with who is protected and where one groups protections start to interfere with those of another group. I think it's helpful to see the parallels and differences in how other nations deal with similar circumstances. To a point I can support that anyone should be allowed to believe any idiotic thing they wish, even if it is something very crass. The line between violence and self defense can get very blurry once groups start to gain significant numbers and power. I won't claim to know very much about the AfD or the current state of fascist support in Germany, but from the bits I do read and the poll numbers indicating support for certain things, it doesn't sound too different from the situation with the MAGA Republicans and the fascist and racist movements receiving what looks like preferential treatment while groups they are opposed to seem to receive much more scrutiny.
Hearing Germany debate if neo-Nazis can be considered a protected group is pretty mind-blowing, but the author at least had me understand a little bit how that is even allowed to be discussed. My main concern is when and how is an individual or group in our respective legal systems allowed to preemptively protect themselves? Is someone publicly wearing fascists symbolism on their clothing a serious and immediate threat to someone that is a traditional target of fascist violence? I think any rational person can say it is objectively good that it's illegal to hit someone randomly with a hammer. I think it's also rational to say hitting someone with a hammer to protect your life should be acceptable. But when does a threat become a danger? When does hitting someone with an object switch back from being for the removal of a threat and into violence? Does one have to let a fascist cause them physical harm before they can retaliate? How is that fair to the victim? Looking the other direction, does carrying a hammer in anticipation of coming across a threatening person become a form of looking for trouble or does it go from protecting to one's self to political violence after a certain number of hits? These points, like the interpretation of the song, are all subjective and easy to disagree on, but with the law, they need to eventually be codified. How governments wind up consistently siding can either ease or exacerbate the violence and the direction it comes from.
Overall, this just seems like an indicator of a larger underlying problem for Germany, similar to much I see going on in my country. It's getting scary to see the same things playing out in so much of the world, especially in countries most of us have typically considered "the good ones" for a long time.