I feel like this article isn’t clear. Is the court opining that teaching Marx should be banned in Germany?
Even as someone who has strong disagreements with Marxism, that seems quite unnecessary and, frankly, dangerous to democratic principles.
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
23 points (96.0% liked)
Politics
10748 readers
146 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The headline isn't clear. The article goes into quite a lot of detail (the situation is much more complex, and the headline is probably a pretty misleading summary) and is perfectly clear.
I read the article but I did not find it clear at all. They quote the court’s reasoning but what is the implication of it? Or is it just an opinion without any consequences?
That's not really clear in actuality. Different people have different opinions on what might be the results, and a few of them are quoted in the article stating their takes on it. The fact that the reality isn't clear yet isn't exactly the article's fault.
I believe the only relevant quote was from the defense lawyer, and he’s not exactly an uninvolved expert. I was hoping for more analysis or context on the German legal system and how this could play out. But they didn’t include any such information.
Hm... yeah, maybe so. They linked to taz, they quoted a random member of Masch, and they cited some other cases, but yeah maybe it would have been good to have an actual legal expert weighing in on how realistic it is that this will mean anything significant.
Okay? It isn't part of the constitution, so why would that matter?
Unconstitutional means "illegal"
Has anybody a link to the ruling? I'm now 3 articles deep into the taz newspaper which the article cites as source but can't find it.