Oh, I thought you were looking for a German translation.
Look, I don't care much for the way he put it (much too hochgestochen, nobody talks like this), but it's not that hard to understand. I basically see it as in #4. He's saying that the comments, such as in the preceding paragraph, are unacceptable ("out of bounds") for "persuasive" discussions in a civil society. In other words, facts, legal principles, rational arguments would be acceptable to persuade or convince someone; ad hominem attacks ("so-called judge"), name calling and other disparaging comments (a ruling is ridiculous) are not.
Anyway, the question mark after my suggestion was not because I didn't understand the English. It was there because I'm not sure if Überzeugungsarbeit expresses that.