The summary of the casino censorship case is that
the §45 of the Constitution of Estonia
says directly, in a single sentence that forms a whole separate one-sentence-paragraph:
"Tsensuuri ei ole." (English: "There is no censorship."), but
the Chancellor of Justice (Estonian: Õiguskantsler),
Indrek Teder, the official
that is supposed to report directly to the Parliament of Estonia and
is supposed to be the inspector that verifies that the government of Estonia
complies with the Constitution of Estonia, finds
that it is possible to use a scheme, where a lower level
law that is supposed to be overridden by the Constitution of Estonia,
can define whatever repressions that the partocracy finds beneficial
to the partocracy, is enforced with an excuse that the
§11 of the Estonian Constitution allows the repression apparatus
to be used for "stopping illegal activity", even if the illegality
is defined in a lower level law that the Constitution of Estonia
is expected to override. Given that in Estonia commands given by
a minister (Estonian: "Ministri määrus") are equivalent to
lower level laws, any minister can
define anything to be illegal and the same §11 can be used for
enforcing it EVEN, if some other part of the constitution
forbids the repressions. That's the scheme behind the official
excuse for censorship in Estonia.