The German grandstand was one of the most important newspapers of the German Vormärz, the period between 1830 and the liberation revolution of 1848/49. Its editor, Johann Georg August Wirth, formulated it programmatically: ‘The causes of the depressed state of affairs in Germany, the dark sources of physical and intellectual poverty, and the justified complaints of a noble, yet misunderstood and mistreated people, include above all the suppression of freedom of opinion.’
In Germany it is said that “the strength and reputation of the government are incompatible with freedom of expression, and that a free press makes it impossible to control the helm of the state…” Ignoring the writing style of the time, the newspapermen were mainly concerned with the great value of freedom of the press.
In Germany, there was “at most strict supervision of the press,” according to historian and media scholar Benjamin Mortzfeld in the context of the Network Enforcement Act, which contains rules for social network providers that are subject to fines, which can be imposed read on the blog page of the German Historical Museum. Freedom of the press in this country only received constitutional status in 1949 with the Basic Law.
Freedom of the press cannot be divided
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) has now confirmed with her that it is not set in stone Ban on the right-wing magazine Compact proven, executed in no time at all according to the law of association. Also involved: the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which under President Thomas Haldenwang (CDU) is increasingly degenerating into state protection. This is how the left-wing extremist daily newspaper currently defends itself Young world before the court against their inclusion in the report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
No one needs to sympathize with the publications mentioned or even approve of their positions. That is not the point. At stake is the freedom of the press as the central essence of the democratic order. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press form its basis. And both freedoms are indivisible. Protecting them from a hegemonic state is the order of the day.
Politicians do not have to decide what the media reports within their freedoms and applicable laws and how critically and emphatically they comment on events – no matter how repugnant this may be to those in power. “There is no censorship”, it says Article 5 Basic Law. Neither a Minister of the Interior nor the Office for the Protection of the Constitution should undermine press freedom with weak, contrived “justifications.” If they do, those responsible will inevitably resign from their positions.