Because Laws have never declared illegal/criminal things that should never have been declared as such? Or just because at the time it is considered Criminal, Noone should have the possibility to protect themselves from the government until (in the hope) that the unjust law gets rectified?

Is the History not enough to convince you that no mater the purpose (nefarious or not) Democratic/Liberal Governments can be wrong as much as Dictatorial ones in enacting laws?

If even access to information is forbidden, how are people supposed to get informed that maybe something is not right with these laws so they try to change them?

Because it’s clear we start from radically different perspectives.

You believe some information must be illegal an politicians must protect us from seeing it.

I believe only actions should be criminalized and that no one should have the right to decide what we, as adults, can see and what not

No they aren't. You posit they are because of alleged threats and I and others suggest that the biggest threat is policies like this and people like you trying to give governments huge censorship abilities to coerce conformity.

Your arguments are basic and the kind that lead us to the Iraq invasion and many other wars that are for profit but, at the time, always sold as a matter of national security or similar and dissent is punished in whichever way possible.

You can make dissent virtually nonexistent online if you censor enough.

> "Great firewalls" are necessary as a matter of fact.

Empirically not true, because most countries don’t have them, and are doing fine.

> They have nothing to do with [...] curtailment of freedoms.

They literally curtail freedom.

Quoting Jiang Zemin on Hong Kong is just perfect here.