Faeser gives far-right an internal Reich party congress
Interior Minister Faeser's attempt to shut down the right-wing extremist magazine "Compact" has failed spectacularly. The damage is done to democracy. Those hoping for a ban on the AfD should cross their fingers that the Social Democrat steps down. She can't.
After Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser banned the right-wing extremist magazine "Compact", a publisher from Jürgen Elsässer's circle announced the release of a replacement magazine titled "Nancy". The cover story read: "Poison. Warmongering. Censorship." Elsässer gloated: "What Mrs. Faeser wanted to ban can't be banned." Not stupid, the right-wing extremist made sure to distance himself from the publication of "Nancy", preventing Faeser's order from being applied to it. Thus, the rule of law is outsmarted.
The publisher's self-description, which spreads Elsässer's nonsense, sounds like a pamphlet from the extreme right and left. Such rhetoric is popular in both camps. "During the current collapse of financial market capitalism, the unconstitutional regime projects its hate and panic onto us, the other people who have never had a fundamental choice in how this system is set up. We are witnessing an attempt at a terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic, and imperialistic elements of finance capital."
The rule of law works despite the alleged dictatorship
But it's clear that the "attempt at a terrorist dictatorship" has so far failed. Because the rule of law is obviously working. In the Federal Republic - often referred to as the "BRD GmbH" by Elsässer's followers - there is no judicial arbitrariness, as we know it from Russia, where a dictator takes foreigners hostage to free murderers and spies. Nevertheless, this doesn't bother people like Elsässer, who continue to admire Putin and talk about a dictatorship in Germany, using all the legal means the rule of law offers. So it came as no surprise: Elsässer's lawyers used all means to ensure that "Compact" can appear regularly - and they temporarily won in court.
The Federal Administrative Court expressed doubts about the proportionality of Faeser's "Compact" ban and prioritized freedom of opinion and press over the public interest in shutting down the publication. Now it can appear again until a final decision is made, which could take many months, if not years. Elsässer, his readers, and allies are triumphant. Faeser has given them the proverbial internal party rally by poorly preparing her attempt to shut down "Compact". Her chances of success were minimal.
From the outset of the procedure, it was clear that the construct devised by the Social Democrat to eliminate the magazine and its online presence was highly daring and stood on very shaky constitutional ground. The Basic Law allows for the prohibition of associations that are directed against the constitutional order or against the idea of international understanding. Therefore, Faeser simply declared the editorial operation to be an association. The court considers this possible in principle. However, this does not relieve Faeser of her constitutional obligation to prove a potentially effective unconstitutionality of "Compact" as a reason for prohibition.
Doubts not only from the right-wing corner
The fact that Faeser's approach has been criticized for attempting censorship - and not just from the right-wing corner - was obvious. The AfD immediately shouted in its usual manner. However, warnings also came from the German Journalists' Association (DJV), which cannot be accused of having right-wing sympathies. "If the justification of the Ministry of the Interior is not watertight, then a court procedure could become a PR coup for 'Compact'", the DJV informed the public via "Tagesspiegel".
This is exactly what happened now. Elsaesser is laughing in his sleeves. In the next issue of his bullshit magazine, he will exploit his "victory" in court. Those who didn't know about it now do. Faeser, on the other hand, is left looking foolish. Her efforts to show the public that she is standing up against "the intellectual arsonists who are fostering a climate of hate and violence against refugees and migrants and want to overthrow our democratic state" have backfired. She had explained: "Our ban is a hard blow against the right-wing extremist scene." Yes - but it misfired.
It is correct: A robust state of law must tolerate the crude content of "Compact". It is equally correct that "Compact" must tolerate the state of law. However, this does not mean that the Basic Law can be interpreted at will to combat a "climate of hate and violence". The judiciary is not responsible for feelings and the spirit of the times, but for punishable actions. The "World" author Deniz Yücel hit the nail on the head immediately after the announcement of the ban: "With moral rigorism and shirt-sleeved interpretation of fundamental rights, one can conduct Twitter debates, but not a ministry", he wrote. "Whoever tries this, damages democracy more than the 'Compact' magazine and its flamboyant editor-in-chief Jürgen Elsässer ever could."
"If the ban, as I fear, is lifted by the court, the resignation of the Minister of the Interior is unavoidable," FDP parliamentarian Wolfgang Kubicki had explained after Faeser announced her decision. Of course, the SPD politician will not resign. She will hold out for another year, then she will lose the post anyway. All those who hope for a ban procedure against the AfD should therefore cross their fingers tightly that this happens. Faeser's reaction to her defeat in court - "a quite normal procedure" - has shown that she is not repentant. This is how one can gloss over one's own failure and the triumph of the makers of a right-wing extremist magazine.
The ruling from the Federal Administrative Court has given "Compact" the green light to continue publishing, raising doubts about the feasibility of banning extremist media based solely on the public interest. This decision highlights the importance of upholding the 'Freedom of the press' in a democratic society, even when facing content considered offensive or threatening to societal norms.
Given the court's doubts about the proportionality of the ban and the protection of 'Freedom of opinion and press', it is crucial for authorities to provide compelling evidence of unconstitutionality before attempting to suppress controversial publications. The fate of Faeser's attempt to shut down "Compact" underscores the caution required when balancing the need for security against the principles of an open press, ensuring the spirit of democracy remains intact.
