What are the personal consequences opposing, mobbing or even revile Noble Ones or right view?

What can be expected for oneself, if one is opposing, fighting or even reviling the Noble Ones, Right View or those following this line, here or/and here after?

Once when Ven. Sariputta told the Buddha of what Sunakkhatta, son of the Licchavis, said of Him – that Buddha preaches Dhamma (merely) hammering it out by reasoning, and not through superhuman states – He explained to Sariputta of the ten Tathagata powers. One such was:

"Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell;…”

An ānantarika-kamma is a heinous crime that through karmic process brings immediate disaster. They are called ‘anantarika’ because they are ‘an’ (without) ‘antara’ (interval), in other words the results immediately come to fruition in the next life. Of the five such crimes, the fifth crime is “Creating a schism within the Sangha, the community of Buddhist monks and nuns who try to attain enlightenment.”

As to what is this creating division among Bhikkhus, or “Sangha Bedha”, is described in Sangha Bedha Sutta (AN 10.1.4.7). Here Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear. According to the Vinaya, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root, and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.

There are cases where Bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Then those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?”
The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

If somebody does not know, would that result in harder consequences, or equal, or even lessen such a fault?

The Buddha formulated two saṅghādisesa rules (Sg 10 & 11) to help intercept attempts at schism, and gave special allowances for bhikkhus to try to avoid, prevent, or end schisms, even if it means breaking their Rains-residence. So the Sangha cannot be ignorant of such fundamental basic fact of the doctrine.

Again it is said that "Chetahan Bhikkawe Kamman Vadami” - Volition is the prime factor for good or bad kamma. In the Parajika Paliya of Vinaya Pitaka it elaborate over 75 incidents of man slaughter during Bud dha's time, endorsing how only the volition is the root for all Kammas. A very prominent and well respected Monk has once said that intentionally or unintentionally if you have committed the crime it is punishable. But he has shown no sources from Tripitaka for cross reference. Once I remember a Bhikku stating that if it is un-intentional, the crime is greater and not less. Such views are based on what is discussed in the Kathavattuprakaranaya that says it will be an anantariya kamma. However, they are not direct words from Lord Buddha. On the other hand there are stories where you may do a good kamma not knowing the strength of it, but yet you will earn the good kammapala in full strength. Thus it should be the same when doing a bad kamma.

What are the personal consequences for others and for many, who approve, accept and even follow such?

Buddha categorically states that once a person attains sotapanna or become a stream winner (person of integrity), s/he will not indulge in any such actions. S/he will recognize a speaker of non-Dhamma as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ … what was not spoken, not mentioned by the Tathāgata as ‘spoken, mentioned by the Tathāgata’ … what was spoken, mentioned by the Tathāgata as ‘not spoken, not mentioned by the Tathāgata’ … what was not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata as ‘regularly practiced by the Tathāgata’ … what was regularly practiced by the Tathāgata as ‘not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata’ … what was not formulated by the Tathāgata as ‘formulated by the Tathāgata’ … what was formulated by the Tathāgata as ‘not formulated by the Tathāgata’ … a non-offense as ‘an offense’ … an offense as ‘a non-offense’ … a light offense as ‘a heavy offense’ … a heavy offense as ‘a light offense’ … an incurable offense as ‘a curable offense’ … a curable offense as ‘an incurable offense’ … a serious offense as ‘a not-serious offense’ … a not-serious offense as ‘a serious offense.’” A speaker of Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he explains not-Dhamma as “not-Dhamma,” Dhamma as “Dhamma,” and so forth.

Buddha explained in Sappurisa Sutta of Anguttara Nikaya a simple way to identify person of integrity, honorable person, person worthy to be associated with. We can use this Sutta to identify our flaws; to what extent do I have these qualities and am I a person of integrity? And if not we can learn how to become a person of integrity…how to become a person who noble ones considered to be honorable and worthy.

It is not easy. A great deal of self-discipline is needed to be such a person. Trying to live according to noble Dhamma is like swimming against the current, it is not easy, because our mind is disposed towards bad, towards unwholesomeness. That is why the Lord Buddha has stated that three things are essential in practicing Dhmma. What three? Wisdom to know good from bad, effort to defeat defilements and mindfulness. In Satara—satipatthana they are explained as “Atapi, Sampajana, Satima”. In Panca-indriya and Panca-bala they are explained as “Veeriya, Sati, Panna”. In Sapta-bojjanga it is, “Sati, Dhamma-vicaya, Veeriya”. In the noble Eight-fold path they are explained as “Samma ditti, Samma vayama, Samma sati”.

Therefore, let us be humble disciples of the Buddha and strive to be a person of integrity. Otherwise the personal consequences for those who approve, accept and even follow such Adhamma – non-dhamma- is that they will be barred from heavenly realms, and from the dhamma path.

The mark of a Noble One is sunatta (emptiness; voidness), as the Lord Buddha explained about the perfectly virtuous Sariputta in MN 151.

The Blessed One said to venerable Sāriputta. `Sāriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you spend your time mostly?”

“Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidance.”

“It's good Sāriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of Great Beings. Sāriputta,

When a monk exhibits greed, ambition, anger, conceit, domineeringness & delusion; always harassing laypeople; it is good karma to expel that monk from a community.

For example, in AN 6.54, the lay Buddhists expelled the bad monk Dhammika from their district.

The personal consequences are wisdom & liberation when opposing, mobbing or even reviling an Ignoble One of wrong view.

The Lord Buddha explained in the Dhammapada:

64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.

73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries and honor among householders.

74. "Let both laymen and monks think that it was done by me. In every work, great and small, let them follow me" — such is the ambition of the fool; thus his desire and pride increase.

75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim but develop detachment (viveka) instead.

Given how important Right View is, I suppose that the consequence of ignoring or being averse to right view is remaining in samsara instead of becoming liberated. The opening lines of the Dhammapada, for example, suggests that quarreling will only cause more quarreling, and that the only antidote to anger is non-anger (see also What is the Antidote for a Hateful Temperament?).

Note that the prescription in the Dhammapada isn't only about (isn't specific to) being polite to Noble Ones -- the back-story to verse 5 is about a quarrel with an ogress.

You presumably know more than I do but I don't remember much on this topic in the suttas. I think the suttas (and the vinaya) tell more about "how to behave in a respectable way" rather than "what happens if you oppose or don't show respect".

But the (translations of the) suttas do describe what might now seem to be elaborate shows of respect and polite discourse, and so I presume that's normal in that society and impoliteness is abnormal. See also for example Tradition and purpose of prostration practice.

The only example I can think of off-hand, where the Buddha reproves someone, is in MN 26:

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'

"So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.

It doesn't explain why, or what the consequence are of not being respectful, so I'm not sure that answers your question. My guess is that the statement had two meanings: the first is that "friend" is untrue, i.e. the Tathagata is no longer the person they once knew; and the second is that the audience needed to put aside their preconceptions, of him as an unenlightened person, in order to hear properly.