It doesn’t begin with violence. It begins with words. With so-called “opinions” that in truth are directed against the dignity of others. The ruling of the Federal Administrative Court on June 24, 2025, is therefore more than a legal event - it is a political harbinger. That the ban on the media outlet Compact, classified as unequivocally far-right, was overturned is not a victory for freedom of speech. It is the legitimization of a targeted attack on the democratic order - using its own tools. The court’s reasoning stated that one must “trust in the power of open discourse.” That sounds like Habermas, like liberal rule of law. But what if that discourse has already been poisoned? What if the opposing side is not seeking truth, but aims to destroy the very foundation of this discourse? Presiding judge Ingo Kraft stated that Compact was merely expressing “exaggerated but permissible criticism of migration.” The word “permissible” carries a double irony here: it refers to legal permissibility - but also to a new societal tolerance threshold for what can be said, one that has dangerously shifted.
Back in 2023, the Federal Ministry of the Interior made it clear with its ban: Compact is not journalism in the classical sense. It is a campaign organization that openly calls for the abolition of the constitutional order - a kind of journalistic infantry in the far-right culture war. The government's argument was based on the Associations Act, specifically §3 paragraph 1, which allows for the banning of organizations that oppose the constitutional order. And yet the court in Leipzig came to the opposite conclusion: a limited liability company (GmbH), the judges said, does not fall under this definition of an association. Here a legal loophole becomes a systemic wound. The idea that enemies of the constitution merely need to disguise themselves as “publishers” in order to pursue their anti-democratic goals undisturbed is an invitation to strategic infiltration. It is precisely this gray zone between press freedom and manipulation of opinion that Compact exploits - along with an ever-growing segment of the so-called New Right.
But the ruling affects more than just a GmbH. It touches on the question of how resilient a democracy may - and must - be. The Federal Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasized in previous rulings: freedom of expression ends where human dignity begins. Antisemitic narratives, racist incitement, the dehumanization of migrants as “culturally alien barbarians” - all of these cross that line. Compact does not seek debate, it seeks division. It seeks to overthrow the “system,” as founder Jürgen Elsässer has said publicly on several occasions. That is not an opinion - that is a threat. From an international law perspective, a serious question arises: to what extent can a state that is obligated to protect against racist propaganda (for example, under the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) still act, if its own courts confuse such media with constitutionally protected expression? Germany has committed itself internationally to preventing hate speech and far-right mobilization. This ruling undermines that commitment - even in the eyes of those already watching Europe’s ideological drift with concern.
It is a fallacy to believe that far-right agitation will somehow dissolve through public discourse. That discourse has long since been hijacked - by those who use language to reframe reality. Compact is merely the crystallization point of this propaganda. On YouTube, Telegram, and social media, echo chambers form in which perceived injustice mutates into political mission - fueled by professional disinformation, so-called system criticism, and a supposed “counter-public” that in truth wants no public at all, only identity, exclusion, and nationalist mythology. The AfD is long at home in these spheres. The case over the party’s classification by the domestic intelligence agency is also being heard by the 6th Senate in Leipzig - the same panel that just ruled in favor of Compact. The consequences are obvious: the AfD will weaponize this ruling rhetorically, using it to confirm its alleged “persecution by the system.” It is the next step toward normalization.
The ruling in Leipzig does not stand alone. It is part of a broader trend of legal neutralization of political flashpoints. It is the hollowing out of democracy through the lens of an outdated liberalism that assumes all voices are equally valid. Yet some voices seek to abolish precisely that equality. Those who normalize hatred become facilitators of its spread. Compact was never just a magazine. It is a project of political delegitimization - through language, imagery, and constant repetition. That this project now enjoys legal protection is not a sign of the rule of law’s strength. It is its alarm bell. Perhaps it truly was time to launch a new online magazine - one that is not neutral in the face of inhumanity, but courageous in its defense of democracy. Not just because we are “against the right” - but because we are for people.
English 
German 
