The AfD-affiliated Compact-Magazine is currently working at full speed again. The monthly magazine currently features Sahra Wagenknecht and Friedrich Merz on its cover, snuggled up close to each other in a photomontage. The denunciatory headline reads: “Are you serious? BSW wants to work with the CDU.” Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) had actually recently wanted to ban the paper, which also spreads all kinds of conspiracy theories. But in an expedited procedure on August 18, the Federal Administrative Court granted an application by Compact law. As an expert in such cases of association bans, Björn Schiffbauer teaches public law at the University of Rostock.
SZ: Mr. Schiffbauer, what exactly went wrong in the attempt by Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) to stop the right-wing extremist magazine Compact to put an end to it?
Björn Schiffbauer: When I read the Federal Administrative Court’s emergency decision, the problem seems to be that the Minister of the Interior has not provided sufficient evidence. She has used a lot of words, but has not provided enough substance. The court criticizes the fact that it simply cannot assess with certainty whether the makers of the Compactmagazine really endanger the free democratic basic order, as Nancy Faeser boldly claims. He lacks the necessary material for this. And the court says: As long as that is the case, Compact will continue to appear for now – even though it is proven to spread inhumane content. So it remains undecided.
This means: It could still work out with Faeser’s Compact-Ban?
Yes, of course. But for now, this is of course a crushing political defeat for the Minister of the Interior. She must accept the fact that she did not work carefully enough. In a press release, Faeser announced: “Today I have taken the right-wing extremist magazine Compact banned.” And this is where the inaccuracy begins, in my opinion. Because legally, no magazine can be banned. Only the GmbH behind it, which in legal terms falls under the broad umbrella term of an association. There has to be that much honesty.
Are you surprised that Compact has now achieved this stage victory?
In the past, the Interior Ministry has never really failed with its bans on associations. The judiciary has hardly opposed this.
Does this surprising turn of events perhaps have something to do with the fact that in the past such bans on associations have mostly concerned groups of violent offenders – but now a media company that focuses on the Freedom of the press can appoint?
I found an informative passage in the Federal Administrative Court’s decision on this. Courts are usually politely reserved in their tone. But in paragraph 31, the court addresses the Minister of the Interior directly. And the court tells the Minister that her “assumption” about the importance of freedom of the press and the consequences of this for a ban on an association is incorrect.
What does that mean?
What this means is that Nancy Faeser’s team apparently did not do its homework properly on a concrete legal issue from the court’s perspective. One could say that the ministry misjudged the importance of press freedom.
Because freedom of the press according to Article 5 of the Basic Law also applies to German-loving conspiracy theorists?
Not without limits, of course. If freedom of the press is abused to aggressively and combatively overturn the liberal order and the makers of a magazine like Compact then it may be necessary to impose such a ban. I would not therefore blame Nancy Faeser in principle for overreaching herself here. But in such a sensitive area, one does have to weigh things up particularly carefully. That is the message of the Federal Administrative Court. Nothing more, nothing less.
“The Federal Administrative Court wants to be able to form its own opinion about these connections. I think that’s right.”
Some lawyers have also criticized Nancy Faeser for choosing to ban an association in the first place – after all, she is censoring a press organ through the back door. But censorship is not permitted under the Basic Law.
I know the criticism. But it seems to me to be a bit hair-splitting. The court does not share this criticism either. Like any other person, an association must be judged by its actions. And if these actions consist of publishing hate-mongering material, then in principle that can be just as much a reason for banning the association as other actions. This is not about censorship of the press, but about a possible anti-constitutional organization behind it. The only important thing is that when weighing things up, the importance of press freedom must be taken into account. As the Federal Administrative Court has now also called for.
What happens next?
Nancy Faeser’s Interior Ministry must now provide the court with much more material and context to support its accusations against those behind the Compact-Magazine. It is not enough to present individual articles and quotes from confidential emails that may have been taken out of context. The Federal Administrative Court wants to be able to form its own opinion about these connections. I think that is right.
And what if the Ministry of the Interior doesn’t have much material left in reserve?
This now depends on whether Compact can continue to agitate at kiosks and on the Internet later, after a final decision by the Federal Administrative Court – or whether the ban on Faeser will still go through.