Hope for Freedom of Expression and Democracy - Federal Administrative Court Lifts Ban on Compact Magazine

The judges ruled that the requirements for an association law-based ban were not met. The magazine's content, they stated, falls within the constitutionally protected freedom of expression and freedom of the press, as long as it does not directly incite or actively support unconstitutional actions.

This ruling sets a significant precedent: it emphasizes that, in a liberal democratic state governed by the rule of law, even controversial or polarizing publications must be permissible — even if they attract widespread public criticism. Freedom of expression explicitly protects not only mainstream opinions but also inconvenient or dissenting views.

Criticism of the Ministry of the Interior's Actions

At the time, Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser justified the ban by claiming the magazine was “proven to be extremist.” However, the court found no sufficient evidence that the magazine's editorial stance warranted a ban under the Associations Act. As such, the ban was not legally sustainable — a clear indication that government action exceeded what is legally permissible.

The revocation raises questions about the proportionality of state measures. Critics see it as a case in which the federal government itself may have violated the constitutional order — an accusation that must be taken seriously in a democratic discourse.

The government — especially the federal administration — must know from the outset what is legally permissible. There are numerous advisors in place whose responsibility it is to inform politicians about the legal foundations of such prohibitions. If the government acts in this manner nonetheless, it reveals clear tendencies away from a liberal democratic order — not through a media outlet, but through the government itself. Apparently, Nancy Faeser was not stopped by the then-chancellor or other responsible officials. After the change in government, the ban could also have been lifted by the new administration.

Location and Legal Disputes

Compact magazine is headquartered in the town of Stößen in the Burgenland district (Saxony-Anhalt). Even beyond its dispute with the Ministry of the Interior, the magazine faced legal challenges. For instance, it had to take legal action to obtain a business account at the Sparkasse Burgenlandkreis, after no bank was willing to provide it with an account. Such exclusion from the financial system can be problematic within the context of democratic principles — unless justified by clear legal grounds.

Significance for Democratic Culture

Regardless of one's view of the magazine's content, the ruling underscores a fundamental principle: in a democracy, the publication of controversial or uncomfortable opinions must be possible. The only boundary is defined by the constitution — not by political judgments or public sentiment.

The ruling therefore does not primarily strengthen the magazine itself, but rather the constitutional framework that allows for political and journalistic pluralism. The decision from Leipzig can be seen as a general strengthening of freedom of expression — and as a signal that state action must always be bound by law and the constitution.

The ruling of the Federal Administrative Court marks an important moment for freedom of expression in Germany. It demonstrates: democracy also means tolerating dissent and diversity of opinion — as long as these remain within the bounds of the constitutional order. The decision serves as a reminder of the fundamental values of an open constitutional state.

Link to the Compact magazine website: https://www.compact-online.de

Criminal Organization Still Active Nationwide

Great Despair! Forgotten Ancestors?

No Supermarket in the Park – 60 Objections to the Development Plan – Protest: News from Lützen