Compact magazine is engaged in a legal battle against a state-imposed ban, prompted by its support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). The Federal Ministry of the Interior claims the publication threatens democratic values. Although Compact has temporarily continued publishing following a court challenge, the case raises significant issues concerning freedom of expression versus state security. Surveillance of the magazine’s associates has revealed controversial discussions, leading to debates about its ideological stance and the appropriateness of a complete ban.
Compact Magazine’s Legal Battle Against a Ban
During the election campaign, the far-right publication Compact has been actively supporting the Alternative for Germany (AfD). The state authorities aimed to impose a ban on the magazine; however, Compact has mounted a legal defense to continue its publication for the time being. Recent investigations by NDR and WDR shed light on the ongoing legal proceedings.
Events Leading to the Ban
On a July morning, when the state announced the prohibition of the far-right Compact magazine, its editor-in-chief, Jürgen Elsässer, was confronted at his doorstep by a group of masked police officers. They were there to enforce a significant ban issued by the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI).
The ban extends beyond just the magazine itself; it encompasses the broader Compact network. The BMI argues that the Compact-Magazin-GmbH poses a threat to democratic values and the constitution, as detailed in their decree. The domestic intelligence agency has monitored the publisher for several years, further highlighting their concerns.
As discussions unfold among courts, journalists, and legal experts, the case highlights a critical balance between two fundamental democratic rights: freedom of expression and the press versus the state’s obligation to safeguard itself against potential threats.
In response to the ban, Compact swiftly filed a complaint, which allowed it to continue publishing temporarily. The magazine’s legal team successfully challenged the ban in an expedited hearing at the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig during the summer. This partial victory has been celebrated by the far-right community, though a final verdict is not anticipated until after the main hearings in June, leaving the outcome uncertain.
Surveillance and Controversial Conversations
Since late 2021, the domestic intelligence service has classified Compact as a secure far-right entity, thereby permitting surveillance through various intelligence methods, as emphasized by the BMI in response to inquiries. The ministry has relied on statements from intercepted communications to substantiate their claims regarding the dangers posed by Compact.
Among those monitored were Jürgen Elsässer, his wife, and a prominent moderator from Compact-TV. One individual associated with the group confirmed that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution had informed him about the surveillance measures, although not the specifics.
The lawyers representing Compact contend that the intercepted conversations have been misinterpreted. They argue that the BMI has captured over a dozen critical conversations, yet the ministry declined to comment on specific surveillance details.
Insights into the internal discussions reveal controversial views held by the Elsässers. For instance, Stephanie Elsässer allegedly expressed a ‘völkisch-racist worldview’ in a conversation, suggesting that the intelligence of the white race has diminished due to immigration. Both Jürgen and Stephanie Elsässer did not respond to requests for comments.
In another intercepted dialogue, she purportedly spoke about a growing network of like-minded individuals seeking a ‘revolution’ or a ‘system overthrow.’ The BMI interprets these terms as evidence of Compact’s intent to dismantle the democratic system, while the group claims they advocate for change through legal political means, such as elections.
The Legal and Ideological Implications
The ongoing legal dispute raises critical questions about the nature of Compact as a publisher versus an ideological association. Registered as a GmbH, the company argues for its right to press freedom. However, the BMI views Compact primarily as a personal association of individuals united by a shared ideology and political agenda, which could be subject to state prohibition.
Authorities have cited statements made by Jürgen Elsässer regarding their 40,000 subscribers, asserting that they are not merely readers but vital contributors to their ‘revolution.’ This has led the BMI to perceive Compact as adopting an aggressive stance against democracy.
Compact counters these claims by asserting that there have been no substantial complaints regarding their content. In fact, while the Press Council has previously reprimanded the magazine for journalistic misconduct, it has not found grounds for a complete ban. Since 2020, the State Media Authority of Berlin-Brandenburg has received multiple complaints about Compact, resulting in warning letters in several instances.
Another question at the core of the legal battle is why the state does not opt for less severe measures, such as banning individual issues of the magazine instead of a complete prohibition, given that not every article is deemed anti-constitutional.