German Court Permits Public Libraries to Add Warning Labels

Less infamous than burning books, German libraries are now informing™ prospective readers that contents of certain books may be 'controversial'

And thus passes the glory of the world.

When I read this a few weeks ago, I thought to wait and see about the court ruling. Now, with the court ruling in hand, we may now take a closer look at the insanity that’s increasingly gripping Germany.

On another plane, we note that these aren’t signs of strength or vitality of Germany’s post-Wende régime. They are, in fact, the exact opposite of it, and they are definitive markers of a depraved ruling class resorting to ever more absurd measures to stay in power.

Translation, emphases, and [snark, actually, lots of that] mine.

---

Library May Add Warning Labels to Books

A book denies both the moon landing and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: reason enough for Münster City Library to label this and another book with categorisations. A court has now said: rightly so.

Via Der Spiegel, 16 April 2025 [source; archived]

It often happens that a library issues a reading recommendation. But what if it does the opposite? Lend out a book, but at the same time warn against it? The Münster Administrative Court [orig. Verwaltungsgericht] has now ruled that the Münster City Library is allowed to label books with categorisation information when they are lent out.

The author of one of the books in question, in which, for example, the manned moon landing or the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are expressly denied, had demanded the removal of the notice in expedited proceedings and has now failed, as the court announced. The decision is not yet final. The author can lodge an appeal with the North Rhine-Westphalian Higher Administrative Court in Münster (Ref.: 1 L 59/25) [that’s a tricky issue for it impinges on freedom of opinion, touches the publisher’s right of freedom of the (printing) press, and generally, relates to a bunch of other civil liberties, incl. the right to freedom of association, among others].

According to the court’s reasoning, the information provided by the public library was covered by the statutory allocation of tasks for public libraries in North Rhine-Westphalia. The public library is allowed to comment on the content before lending books [this is a tricky thing—imagine, for instance, if the library holds a copy of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), originally published in 1543, it was a key argument in favour of the heliocentric worldview—but Copernicus assumed circular orbits, as opposed to elliptical ones, for the planets: if the same logic applied, stuff like that would need (sic) such a label, too]. This applies both in a positive sense, i.e., for reading recommendations, as well as for critical comments [you see, the library hasn’t been prevented from doing so, it’s virtually the same thing (nevermind the stupid question why the library acquired that particularly offensive™ book in the first place)]. The court emphasised that it is even the legal mandate to provide information on controversial content [this is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the ruling, but then again, I’m not surprised].

‘This is a work with controversial content’

In 2024, the public library had labelled two [note the number] books with the following notice: ‘This is a work with controversial content. This copy is made available due to freedom of censorship, expression and information.’ The author demanded removal [here, there’s but one author who’s mentioned—aren’t you getting curious? I mean, are we talking two authors or one author with two books? And—why isn’t Der Spiegel informing (sic, lol, I know, it’s Der Spiegel) the reader which book(s) to avoid? This will be ‘revealed’ below].

In its decision, the court emphasised that the library does not have a duty of neutrality towards political parties like public officials. However, it must adhere to the principle of objectivity. This was fulfilled in the present case. The city library’s categorisation notice was based on a justifiable factual core. If, for example, an author denies the dropping of the atomic bomb or the moon landing in his work, this representation may be labelled as controversial [note the absence of scare quotes or the like].

The author of theses in which historical facts are disputed must therefore endure that his work is critically scrutinised [note that journo™ wished to add his or her name to this little article: isn’t this ironic and telling at the same time?].

---

Intermission: Which Books Were Labelled?

At this junction, I’ll offer my professional opinion as a historian: yes, those who publish on historical facts, as well as those who voice things in public, must be able to withstand criticism.

If, at this point, you’re wondering: who wrote these two ‘controversial’ books, you’re not alone—and we’re now going to explore this question via a brief detour to a piece that appeared in the alt-media outlet Overton Magazine as early as 23 Dec. 2024 (but note that I’m merely reproducing two paragraphs here as they are introduced by Florian Rötzer with a lot of stuff about censorship elsewhere):

Why the two books Putin, Herr des Geschehens? [trans. Master of What Happens] by Jacques Baud, published by Westend Verlag, and 2024—das andere Jahrbuch: Verheimlicht, Vertuscht, Vergessen [trans. The Other Yearbook: Omitted, Covered Up, Forgotten] by Gerhard Wisnewski—were singled out for special mention is not explained, nor whether this means that all the other books are not controversial and compatible with the principles. Baud’s book can be understood as an appreciation of Putin, the current great enemy and villain of the West, but it argues with a great deal of evidence from sources that can hardly be disputed [hardly surprising: Jacques Baud is a former Swiss intel officer having held the rank of colonel—he’s a bit like Col. Douglas Macgregor, and his crime™ is to hold ‘controversial’ views]. Such a perspective should be compatible with the principles of a democratic society, which is based on free discourse for decision-making. The situation is different with Wisnewski’s book, which was also discussed by the Berufsverband Information Bibliothek e.V. [a non-union umbrella advocacy association for librarians], which provides unsubstantiated, speculative narratives in the style of James Bond scenarios of a global dictatorship or world conspiracy. Some people may enjoy reading such fantasies, but a democracy and an open library for responsible citizens should be able to withstand this.

When asked, the City of Münster’s Communications Department replied: ‘The Münster City Library has added the following note to two of the 350,000 or so books in its collection: “This is a work with controversial content. The content of this work may not be compatible with the principles of a democratic society. This copy is being made available on the grounds of freedom of censorship, freedom of expression and freedom of information.”’

And thus is revealed why two books were labelled—because one is a former Swiss intel officer (Jacques Baud) of impeccable credentials and who is thus smeared and guilt-tripped by association with a ‘conspiracy theorist’ (Gerhard Wisnewski).

As regards Mr. Wisnewski—whose content I have never read, as opposed to me reading Mr. Baud’s writings (which, let’s face it, aren’t even controversial: they are merely not liked by the powers-that-be in the same vein as, say, Col. MacGregor’s views are ‘controversial’)—well, here’s his Wikipedia profile (in German): he’s a former state broadcast journo™ (WDR, or Westdeutscher Rundfunk) that used to run his TV program questioning the official 9/11 account—back in 2003 when that was quite…‘controversial’ (pun intended). I think that questioning the official 9/11 account is both necessary as it is likely full of holes (two planes in NYC brought down three buildings, a fate that has never occurred before or after 11 September 2001, jus’ sayin’…).

The most interesting aside to note is both Mr. Wisnewski’s association with ‘right-wing populism’, which is underwritten by legacy journo™ utterances by, among others, Der Standard’s Hans Rauscher and repeat references to ‘Der Spiegel considers Wisnewski…’ thus. Of course, additional defamatory commentary is also found en masse, such as this comment by fellow author Jörg Lau (Wikipedia; he’s, of course, the right kind of author: a former Marshall Fund Fellow, he used to write for legacy media and is married to Mariam who works as a journo™ at Die Zeit):

Wisnewski is exemplary of the now most successful conspiracy theorists; he places him among the ‘former spontis and anarchos and fringe figures of the red-green milieu who dominate the scene’ instead of the previously dominant ‘type of uptight, authority-fixated weirdo’.

Now, I’m unsure what to make of Mr. Wisnewksi’s writings, but I do note the now-typical guilt-tripping by association, whether proven, true, or not, with the likes of the right-wing identitarian Jürgen Elsässer (editor of Compact magazine) or the late Udo Ulfkotte, although the conflation of these is highly absurd: the latter was a foreign correspondent for legacy media before he became disillusioned and wrote a book with the title Gekaufte Journalisten—or Bought Journalists—which made him a pariah among his former colleagues. As an aside, here’s a 13-minute clip of Mr. Ulfkotte speaking with Russia Today (I know…) dating back to 2014:

Note, finally, that Mr. Ulfkotte used to be a recurring guest on mainstream media shows, that is, until he wrote that book about the corruption of journalism. I suppose you don’t need me to connect the dots here (or issue labels, for that matter).

And with these notions settled, let’s turn to alt-journo Norbert Häring who followed up on the library issue a few days ago.

---

Court Rules that Libraries May Issue Warnings about Books

Via Norbert Häring’s Website, 12 May 2025 [source]

State libraries are allowed to warn users about ‘controversial’ books in their lending stock. With this decision, the Administrative Court of Münster dismissed the complaint of an author concerned. A library employee criticised the warnings in an open letter to her association…

In an open letter to the Northrhine-Westphalian Library Association, library employee Sabine Pint criticises the fact that the association welcomed the Administrative Court’s ruling in an open letter in the following way…[omitted is a paragraph of commentary by Mr. Häring]:

Ladies and gentlemen of the Library Association, Mr Meyer-Doerpinghaus,

First of all, it is important for me to say that I do not belong to, or have any affiliation with any association, organisation, or party.

I am referring to your statement in the above-mentioned newsletter, in which you express your delight at the decision of the Münster Administrative Court, which has ruled that the Münster City Library may label certain media with a categorisation notice. This notice states that the content of these media ‘may not be compatible with the principles of a democratic society’. They write: ‘The judgement underlines the fact that libraries are not passive lending institutions obliged to remain neutral. Rather, they have an active mediating role by categorising the content of their media for their customers [orig. Kunden, which in German has two meanings: patron or customer, depending on circumstance; here, the former meaning is inferred, esp. as public libraries are taxpayer-financed and do not have customers].’ This demonstrates ‘once again the great relevance and responsibility of libraries as co-thinking and co-acting actors in democratic civil society’.

Well, I work in a municipal library and have always understood such an institution to provide citizens and guests of the city with broadband information without educating them. I have never assumed that I or any of the staff have to be ‘neutral’, but I have assumed that our personal opinions should not play a role either in consultations, the acquisition, or presentation of stock.

For what would be the consequence if this were not the case?

• Either the person making such references would be using their power as an editor to place their own opinion in a prominent position in someone else's work.

• Or the references would be widely distributed because everyone sees something else as ‘controversial’ (which should be a reality in most topics in politics and science as a constructive dispute), and then the references would be pointless.

• Alternatively, the purpose of the reference is to help steer towards a unified opinion in certain areas. After all, it cannot be ruled out that it costs many people too much energy to read, think, and discuss such an external categorisation of an institution.

The administrative court could of course decide in this way, because it was ‘only’ contextualisation, not exclusion of these media. Legally, everything may be well-founded, because access to information remains (for the time being) given. But what does ‘contextualisation’ mean? Is it always made transparent who is doing this and for what purpose? Who decides on the boundary between democratic responsibility and the steering of public opinion? [oh, my, many pertinent questions—and do note that neither legacy media nor alt-media has yet linked to the court ruling].

I agree with the philosopher Michael Andrick that the concept of political correctness is in itself completely undemocratic, and this should not exist as an unjustified presumption in an open, equal society. What is the Münster City Library’s warning notice other than an invitation to treat the work with suspicion from the outset, instead of engaging with the content uninfluenced and with the courage to use one’s own intellect? [this is a direct reference to Immanuel Kant’s principle sapere aude, or dare to know].

I feel this way not only as a library employee, but also as a citizen. I don’t want to be educated, I want to meet other people at an equal level. The free exchange of views, which includes free and unhindered information, is the basic prerequisite for democracy. What is often defended out there at the moment in the name of democracy is the stance against freedom of opinion, against oppositional views—it is the simply impossible defence of democracy by undemocratic means. The brazen thing about this is what makes me angry: the concepts continue to be pushed forward unquestioned and unhindered, while the opposite is being practised.

I accept the opinion expressed by Münster City Library as such in the legal sense [this is where I disagree with Ms. Pint: just because something is arrived at legitimately doesn’t mean it’s legal or morally justified—the history of the first half of the 19th century in Europe is full of such examples], but not as part of its educational mission, because that would mean that recognised experts in the relevant educational fields would not only have viewed the media, but would also be able to categorise the content and do so transparently for their library users.

I do not disagree that some authors make statements that are humanly questionable, disrespectful, insulting, or even contemptuous [kinda describes legacy media, doesn’t it?]; criminal law exists to report and punish them [this is a, if not the, key aspect here: where do we as a society draw the line between what is a state-defined crime and what isn’t?]. However, the years of coronavirus measures have impressively shown us that our democratic principles are by no means understood homogeneously. They have made us aware of the danger of one-sided contextualisation, which has led and continues to lead to conclusions about political framing.

It was and is difficult to obtain a diverse range of all the information circulating on a given topic. Large and mainstream publishers that are struggling to survive generally do not publish ‘controversial’ authors or topics, small or new publishers find it difficult to establish themselves on the market; if they also publish very conservative or ‘controversial’ points of view, they are either not invited to book fairs or have to reckon with physical attacks [the former is kinda o.k., technically speaking, as it’s not illegal not to invite anyone; the latter, however, is a crime, isn’t it?]. In 2017, the Börsenverein called for an ‘active confrontation’ with certain publishers, which led to protests, riots, scuffles, and damage to property at the fair [what happened was the AfD politician Björn Höcke appeared in Frankfurt am Main and the even was attacked by left-wing extremists (reporting by Die Welt); back then, the Börsenverein—which hosts the Frankfurt Book Fair—defended Mr. Höcke’s appearance and the hosting of otherwise ‘controversial’ conservative and right-wing publishers in the name of pluralism and freedom of opinion: if you’d ever needed a demonstration how far (left™) the Overton Window has shifted in the past eight years, look no further].

Where does it lead when cultural policy is the extended arm of government policy?

It should be indisputable that various means are being used to try to suppress unpopular opinions instead of discussing them. The EU’s Digital Services Act, the distribution of votes in publicly screened discussion panels, the tone of reporting in the leading media during the coronavirus crisis—the fact that anything that deviates from the government’s opinion is treated dismissively from the outset clearly shows me that it is not devaluation that should be strengthened, but respectful dialogue.

As a citizen and library user, what I expect from my city library is that the institution provides me with information of any ideological orientation through its staff, covered by its management, and this in turn by the Mayor. The ‘certain duty of neutrality’, which the library, as a municipal institution, is at least still attested to to a limited extent, is fulfilled by the balanced diversity of the offer, not by the fact that employees, directors, or mayors have to be personally neutral.

The offer has no educational agenda or has to be brought to me using nudging, culminating in the City of Münster’s seemingly reluctant addition that the labelled books would nevertheless be ‘made available’ ‘due to freedom of censorship, opinion and information’. Nudging and democracy are mutually exclusive. Who wants to use which arguments to claim that both can exist at the same time?

For me, this judgement is no reason to rejoice. It is an invitation to the powers that be to use nudging in their own interests, to further increase the pressure on cooperation, to make the necessary open exchange even more difficult, and to prevent favourable joint development.

Yours sincerely,

Sabine Pint

P.S.: In the same newsletter in which the judgement of the Münster Administrative Court is praised, the Freedom of Expression Week is advertised, which took place from 3 to 10 May 2025, initiated by the German Publishers and Booksellers Association.

---

Bottom Lines

While I personally agree with both Ms. Pint and Mr. Häring’s points of view, I also note severe shortcomings there: the court ruling isn’t linked, and if so, several additional issues jump at you. This is from part 1 of the ruling:

The general right of personality [orig. Persönlichkeitsrecht] under Art. 2 para. 1 GG [Grundgesetz, Germany’s de facto constitution] in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 GG protects not only honour, but also other aspects of social prestige, without giving its bearer a right to be portrayed only in a way that is acceptable to them [i.e., you cannot be defamed]. In particular, it includes protection against statements that—without being defamatory in the strict sense—are likely to have a detrimental effect on an individual’s public image…

The decisive factor is whether the scope of protection of a fundamental right is affected and whether the impairment constitutes an encroachment. An indirect factual effect can also be sufficient for this [do re-read if necessary: even if there is a general likelihood of defamation, it’s illegal]…

Such an indirect factual interference exists in relation to the applicant’s general right of personality [the court ruled that by adding these ‘don’t read this loony stuff’ stickers, the author’s personality rights are at least indirectly infringed—which means it’s illegal to do so]. The categorisation notice is likely to have a detrimental effect on the applicant's public image.

Whether, as the applicant believes, there is also an encroachment on freedom of opinion, freedom of the press and artistic freedom can be left open [so, this will go to the next appellate-level of the judiciary]. In this respect, too, there would at best be an indirect factual interference [which is probably also ‘good enough’ to constitute an infringement, but we’ll see].

If, at this point, you’re asking yourself: how TF did the administrative court rule, well, here goes (part 2 of the ruling):

However, all possible encroachments on fundamental rights are justified [see, that was super easy for the court: it’s a-o.k. if the gov’t does it, i.e., break the constitution; if this recognition surprises you after 5+ years of the Covid shitshow, well, I might have a ship tunnel to sell to you].

Official statements by a public authority that interfere with fundamental rights are justified if the public authority is acting within the scope of the tasks assigned to it and the constitutional requirements for official statements in the form of the requirement of objectivity are met [translation from the legalese: if whatever shit is done fits within the scope of whatever institution we’re talking, it’s fine to break the constitution].

If, at this point, you’re like, WTF, how is this ruling not contradicting the court’s statements in part 1, well, it ain’t. The court merely holds that it’s o.k. for the gov’t to break the law as long as doing so somehow™ is related to the core tasks of whatever institution we’re talking about.

Talk about the ends justifying any kinds of means.

All of this was perfectly obvious for anyone who cared to see in the early days of the Covid shitshow. If you need any further evidence, I shall point to one of my earliest pieces:

The Kiss of Death for Free Speech in Central Europe

Look at that date: 4 October 2021. I told you so.

Mind you, I’m not gloating, but we shall also discuss what’s coming next: this kind of erosion of the rule of law will only accelerate in the months and years to come, if only because, much like an avalanche, once the slide begins, it soon becomes unstoppable.

The one best thing you and I can do is to avoid whatever conflict with the state. You can never win, and even if you’re permitted a battle win, the war will be won by the state.

Hence, these pages acquire another function: that of a diary or journal chronicling the world as it once was.