The main thing is to get rid of it? Wait a minute. By banning the right-wing extremist Compact magazine, the Federal Minister of the Interior is entering constitutionally and politically mined territory.
The magazine “Compact” is now banned, along with its channels and shops. This was the decision of Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD). “This magazine incites hatred in an unspeakable way against Jews, against people with a migration background and against our parliamentary democracy,” she said.
Faeser is absolutely right. Nevertheless, the decision is problematic because it affects freedom of the press.
Of course, there is no reasonable doubt that “Compact” is a right-wing extremist publication. Editor-in-chief Jürgen Elsässer, like others before him, has long since completely completed the path from left-wing to right-wing radical.
His magazine is a racist and disgusting propaganda sheet that propagates overthrow. “We want to overthrow this regime,” according to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, it said on its website.
And it’s not just the magazine, which is said to have a circulation of 40,000 copies. The publication also includes, among other things, a large online shop through which various right-wing extremist publications and devotional items are sold.
The ban, said Faeser, shows “that we are also taking action against the intellectual arsonists who are stirring up a climate of hatred and violence against refugees and migrants and who want to overcome our democratic state.”
What the Basic Law says
In fact, the Basic Law provides that democracy can defend itself against its enemies. Article 9, which regulates freedom of association, explicitly states: “Associations whose purposes or activities contravene the criminal law or which are directed against the constitutional order or against the idea of international understanding are prohibited.”
But the crucial question is: Is “Compact” primarily an association – or rather a press product? And is it, as is the case with the starunder the special protection of the Basic Law?
Article 5 states: “Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through radio and film are guaranteed.” And: “There is no censorship.”
Association law and freedom of the press must be weighed against each other
Precisely because freedom of opinion and freedom of the press prevail in Germany, press products that can justifiably be described as extremist may also be published. They are called, for example, “Zuerst” and “Nation und Europa” or “Rote Fahne” and “Unsere Zeit”.
In short, you don’t have to be a constitutional lawyer to see that the Federal Minister of the Interior had to weigh up two legal interests – and in the end made a clear decision. The ban, she says, should show “that we are also taking action against the intellectual arsonists.”
One basis for the step is likely that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has classified the magazine as “confirmed right-wing extremist” since the end of 2021 and is monitoring it intensively accordingly. But Faeser may also have felt encouraged by the fall of linksunten.indymedia. The left-wing extremist internet platform was banned in 2017 by the then Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Mazière (CDU), after he had already shut down the right-wing extremist platform “Altermedia Deutschland” the year before.
The activists from “indymedia” appealed against the ban in vain. The Federal Constitutional Court did not even allow the appeal after the Federal Administrative Court had approved the ban.
However, the administrative judges dismissed the complaints primarily on formal grounds and did not examine the substantive reasons for the ban. In terms of content, they expressed themselves rather ambivalently.
They explained that the law on associations was applicable because it also covered associations whose purpose was press activities. At the same time, however, the ban on associations could not be based on expressions of opinion that were protected by freedom of expression.
Federal Administrative Court: Proportionality of bans important
Key sentence: “The media’s special right to protection must be taken into account when examining the reasons for the ban, in particular the proportionality of the ban.”
In this respect, it seems questionable whether “indymedia” serves as a precedent. Moreover, the real political context of “Compact” is different. The magazine clearly belongs to the so-called front line of the AfD parliamentary party, which in turn is facing important state elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg.
“Compact” campaigned for the AfD
Elsässer and his magazine not only promoted right-wing extremist AfD politicians like Björn Höcke, but also campaigned for the party. With a mobile stage, “Compact” traveled mainly through eastern Germany to promote a “Blue Wave” in the local, European and state elections.
The ban on “Compact” is therefore at least indirectly directed against the AfD, although its chairperson recently distanced himself somewhat from the magazine. Because Elsässer also collected money for the party, Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla feared the next party donations scandal and distanced themselves.
However, this tactical distance did not stop the two party leaders from expressing their outrage on Tuesday. “The ban on the Compact magazine is a serious blow to press freedom,” they said.
Weidel’s double standard on press freedom
If the propagandistic exaggeration is taken away, the process can certainly be viewed in this way. With her decision, Faeser is consciously crossing the line of censorship. This makes it all the more important that the decision is quickly reviewed by the courts.
In any case, the AfD’s understanding of press freedom, at whose demonstrations “lying press!” is regularly chanted, can be considered to be at least self-interested. For example, the Bundestag faction described the ban on the portal “indymedia” as being against the threat to public order posed by violent left-wing extremists.
This is what we call double standards.
Source: Stern

I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.