Despite acknowledging that the magazine's content could be anti-constitutional, the judges ruled that the publication's criticism fell within allowable limits of free expression. Presiding Judge Ingo Kraft emphasized the constitution's protection of speech, even when unpopular. This ruling has been celebrated by Compact’s editor-in-chief, Jürgen Elsässer, who claimed it boosts support for the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), which shares ties with the magazine and is also labeled as right-wing extremist by German intelligence.

The debate surrounding the AfD's potential ban continues, with many arguing that such actions could backfire by reinforcing the party's portrayal as a victim of state suppression. In parallel, German officials have been navigating a challenging road in qualifying anti-constitutional groups, particularly amidst accusations from supporters of Donald Trump about free speech repression in Germany. The discussions reflect the complexities intrinsic to Germany's historical context, wherein government restrictions on speech and expression involve cautious legal boundaries, often leading to judicial challenges.

Notably, despite international critiques of Germany's political climate, AfD members frequently participate in mainstream media discussions, thus maintaining a presence in public discourse. The court’s ruling on Compact, which the government cannot appeal, raises questions about the balance between upholding democratic standards and protecting society from extremist ideologies.