"two years for tweeting a picture of the bible"

That's a bit of a oversimplification. What she was prosecuted (not convicted) on was definitely not a just a simple picture of the bible. Besides, that's only one of the charges. Other charges come from the times she implied homosexuality to be a genetic degeneration and later on called homosexuality a disorder.

Also, two years of jail is the maximum for that type of crime. IF she is found guilty, she will almost definitely get some relatively small fine.

It's understandable the christian folks want to paint this whole case as just "two years for tweeting a picture of a bible". But it's much more nuanced than that. Additionally the trial is still ongoing and it's very much unclear what the outcome will be. And this case is still handled in district court, I highly doubt it stays on that level. There's a lot of analysis and comments of the trials in the newspapers, but they are all in Finnish. I found this one in English that explains the case a bit better than "two years for tweeting a picture of the bible". https://yle.fi/news/3-12284380

Calling hate speech and attempts to reintroduce an ideology that sank a continent into war and killed millions a bland "offending someone" is so obviously bullshit that it's a marvel to me how you could write that without disintegrating into a puddle of shame.

Or maybe you did -- do you, at long last, have some sense of decency left?

And you have the gall to call Orban an authoritarian.

What's more remarkable is that you have the gall to claim he's anything else.