Why is not Fox News not banned then? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care about RT it’s a Russian controled media so their bias is clear. I don’t find them to be credible source. Just like Fox “entertainment” news.
RT isnt a news source, its a propaganda mouth piece for Putin. This isnt a restriction on freedom of speech, irs cutting off a source of blatant lies, that go unchallenged.
So then ban BBC and other state owned propaganda outlets. The BBC has been proven to spread disinformation about socialist countries and geopolitical adversaries to the west. Either commit to censoring disinformation, or commit to “free speech,” as it stands it’s just protecting fragile western narratives.
Same is true for Fox “news”… and I’d rather have a ban on them t.b.h.
How “convenient” of the screenshot to not even mention that RT stands for “RussiaToday”: a website and organization that was proven to spread Russian propaganda, and is proven to be sponsored by the Russian state.
In reality, yes the EU resources are limited and you can’t bring down every individual post after going to court first. If the platform systematically does illegal stuff and spreads lies and propaganda, you ban the platform. That’s the only logical way.
So then ban BBC and other state owned propaganda outlets. The BBC has been proven to spread disinformation about socialist countries and geopolitical adversaries to the west. Either commit to censoring disinformation, or commit to “free speech,” as it stands it’s just protecting fragile western narratives.
The BBC is proven to spread western propaganda and is proven to be sponsored by the British state… Ban when?
Agreed
Ah but you see, there’s no free speech in Russia. Posting anything could get you imprisoned by the orc regime. For that reason, it would have been authoritarian of us to not criminalise RT, actually.
Hope that makes sense 👍🇪🇺
This seems like a nothing burger. The ban of RT is in place already, the new decision is not relating to whether it stays in place or not:
In the law, operators are forbidden from distributing content from a list of banned media, including RT. The question is not relating to the continuation of that ban, but on the word “operator” in particular; it essentially means that it’s an entity distributing the content from a commercial perspective.
The question is whether gifts & donations to a private (non-commercial) individual turn that private individual into a commercial distributor and thus an operator.
‘Must Article 2f(1) of [Regulation No 883/2014] be interpreted as meaning that operators, within the meaning of that provision, also include natural persons who, through a website operated by them, only generate income in the form of voluntary contributions from third parties (donations or gifts)?’
Cited in Judgement #16, page 6
And it follows in the conclusion:
[The law] must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who operates a website by broadcasting on it content originating from legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, and derives from the operation of that website only income from voluntary contributions from third parties, in the form of donations or gifts, comes within the concept of ‘operator’ within the meaning of that provision
This is the conclusion on the last page of the judgement (is it me or the wording is pretty bad around
The judgement also carefully qualifies why gifts & donations are qualified as income in #15
However, that court observes that the collection of private donations, which constitute gifts under civil law, is capable of being classified as a ‘professional activity’, where it is carried out to such an extent that the beneficiaries receive significant sums enabling them to finance, at least in part, their means of subsistence. In the present case, the appeal for donations appears to be designed to generate financial resources for the continued operation of the traugott-ickeroth website and therefore to constitute a sustainable source of income, which is characteristic of a professional activity
So essentially, the information itself can still be freely shared so long as it’s done without monetary support that can be considered as “income”; they’re not further banning the information itself, simply closing a “loophole”.
I don’t like the original law either (because the media list can be amended to practically include anything and anyone), but this is not changing much, and given the amount of the donations (60k in a year) it’s surprising that they thought that would not be considered commercial exploitation to begin with.
Honestly, if they had cut off donations early or capped them to their server costs, then the prosecution would have no recourse.
Thank you for this detailed context. On the one hand, that makes perfect sense: Closing a loop hole. On the other hand, it’s chilling how this could be extended to cover other media or, ultimately, other community-driven projects, like open source, which rely on donations to survive.
The ban of RT is in place already
How authoritarian of them
The EU would not need to do this if they were winning. This is desperate.
Winning WHAT?
The war in Ukraine? Duh? If Russia was losing, the EU wouldn’t bother censoring RT. They’re just words, and words don’t matter when the actual material realities on the ground erase whatever gains they could possibly make with propaganda.
That’s not how how propaganda works.
We’ve seen often enough that people don’t care about the actual truth once they’ve been influenced enough.
Again, that ban should reasonably cover most MSM in any state.
Ok… Show us the EU army then, where are they? How can such a block raise an army and no one hears about it, this is an amazing feat many would love to know the tricks of.
No EU citizen dies regularly over there (except the few loonies that go over there on their own). It’s all Russians and Ukrainians dying there.
I think that EU judicial décision is only there to mirror the decisions the Russian federation took. About média. Just to stay close to what the most advanced country in freedom (Federation of Russia) does with media sharing.
This guy in the screenshot is an Elon simp. When I was still on the Nazi plaform I had to mute him. I wouldn’t trust anything he posts without doing my own validation.
Quite ironic to read this under a post decrying the sanctioning of information based on the author and not the content of the message.
Saying someone is unreliable source is a pretty massive difference from the state throwing them in jail.
He literally links to the document which you would’ve read before commenting if you actually cared about facts of the situation. What you’re very transparently trying to do here is throw shade so that people don’t bother looking at the facts. It’s quite telling that liberals care far more about who the source is rather than what the facts are. Explains a lot about the current state of western society. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/r-v-staatsanwaltschaft-saarbrcken-cjeu-judgment.pdf
I did a little reading. What I found out is EU Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating, or otherwise contributing to the broadcast of content from listed entities, including via internet platforms and distribution by any means. RT / Russia Today Germany is listed in Annex XV.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast. You may have an issue with this, I can certainly see why even if I think that no system of mass media is ever going to be healthy for society again, but what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws. You throw the liberal slander at me but 1) I’m not even close to a liberal and 2) you are upset that the EU is banning the media outlet of one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)? I’m really very confused by what you think you stand for?
Communists are not upset at any use of authority, but the authority of capitalists against workers. Communists want the working classes to have state authority. The idea that communists just love authority is liberal cope used to distract from the argument that the working classes specifically should have state power.
If communists don’t love authority then why promote a political system centred around it. There are literally thousands of different flavours but you chose this one.
Any ideology that supports the existence of a state at any point is “authoritarian.” What matters most is which class controls that authority. When the working classes control the state, as communists wish to establish (and have), this creates more freedom and quality of life for the working classes. The state is a tool, not an ideal.
Why do we need a state?
what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws
This decentralized platform was built by the “authoritarian communists” you decry.
This decentralized platform was built by the “authoritarian communists” you decry.
The philosophy of the platform is anarchistic not communist.
Lemmy was loosely inspired by the federated nature of the soviet union. The main devs are Marxist-Leninists, and developed a federated Reddit alternative based on those principles. Federation existed before Lemmy, but the devs specifically made Lemmy due to their communist principles.
You cannot just take values and proclaim them as belonging to your ideology. That’s ridiculous. I might as well then proclaim that kittens and puppies belong to communism.
It is an objective fact that communists have made great efforts to fight against the existing hegemonic order. Be they individual communists who have created many anti-capitalist communities, or mighty socialist states (USSR and PRC) who challenged the might of the imperialists and allowed many countries to have a chance at independent development.
You cannot simply gloss over it all and say that if a communist does something good that it was actually anarchism all along. That’s patently idealistic.
Friend, this has nothing to do with who you say you are or what labels you give yourself and everything to do with the architecture of the product. You are doing the same thing the post is complaining about, i.e. conflating the source with the truth.
Decentralization is not an “anarchist philosophy”. It is just a tool.
one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)?
The propaganda blitz surrounding the Ukraine war puts that of the Iraq war to absolute shame. Look at how fucking deranged people STILL are about this.
Putin is a fascist . It has nothing to do with Ukraine. I thought this 20 years ago too because he is a textbook fascist i.e. there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state, he’s an authoritarian nationalist who installed a single‑party state, he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic. He might pine for Soviet times but in reality he is just in it for himself. Another pathetic ego maniac of which we have many all over the world these days.
Workers are the state > workers own the means of production > fascism 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Workers own the state in modern Russia? lol
there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state
This is nonsensical. There’s no such thing as an industrialized society with a clear separation between private enterprise and the state. The state is the backbone of any industrial economy and anyone who knows shit about leftism knows that all capitalist countries are bourgeois dictatorships.
he’s an authoritarian nationalist
This description applies to every head of state. There’s no such thing as a “non-authoritarian” nation-state. Furthermore, Russia has substationally stronger minority rights than the west (where the idea of giving minority rights will get you accused of being racist).
he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic
Is this your first year paying attention to politics?
You’re not refuting any points I made though. Everything you and I have said is true.
You’re missing the point. Putin is a bourgeois rat (as I like to call him) but supporting Russia is still harm reduction because Russia’s enemies are the imperialists. Literally everyone is better than the imperialists. The imperialists are the bottom of the barrel.
Putin? He’s just a typical liberal* in comparison.
*liberal in the non-prejorative ideological sense
I’m not upset about anything here actually. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal west. Communists aren’t shy about the need for censorship because we recognize that some ideas are harmful. However, it is western liberals who preach free speech, but then do exactly the same thing as those they deride to be authoritarian whenever their own power structures feel threatened.
The fact that the court considers the source to be a problem rather than the content highlights that European society has turned into a cult where reality no longer matters, only narrative and ideology reign supreme.
That’s fair but if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source. I do agree with your take on liberal free speech. Same as the free market. It’s only free when it’s benefitting the political in-tribe.
Disinformation hasn’t been the problem with the particular source, it’s the fact that it is providing information that’s contrary to the narrative. The actual disinformation about the war has been coming from western source which keep telling us that Russian economy is about to collapse, that Russian army is pulling out chips from washing machines, that Russia is running out of missiles any day now, that Russia is isolated on the global stage, that Ukraine is doing great, that there are no fascists in Ukraine, and there is definitely no busification happening. The real issue here is that it’s western media that it’s western narrative that’s divergent from reality. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hide the fact that the war is going poorly, and its economic effect on Europe, so the EU is becoming very insecure.
This dualism you are promoting where there is a good side and a bad side, an honest actor and a dishonest actor etc is text book Hollywood propaganda. You’re so trapped in the western overton window you can’t even see it.
I think you might be talking about yourself here, cause nowhere did I say the west is the good guy here, nor have I suggested that there is a good side at all. What I actually said was that western media objectively puts out far more misinformation because the narrative it is promoting is at odds with reality. It’s not that Russian media is more honest, it’s just they don’t need to lie because Russia is winning the war.
if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source
So if it can be shown objectively that a given Western source repeatedly spreads disinformation about a given socialist/anti-Western country, you would support a blanket ban from the government of that country using the same logic you’re giving for supporting the EU’s blanket ban, right?
Riiiiight?
Exactly why I said there can be no healthy mass media environment. It’s bullshit from everyone from all angles all the way down.
You didn’t answer the question. Would you support a blanket ban of a news outlet by any government as long as a pattern of disinformation can be objectively shown? Like China or North Korea banning RFA, the news outlet with verifiably bullshit articles about everything socialist Asia that even other Western outlets have debunked? Or is that privilege reserved for “the good guys” in your mind?
You commented this earlier:
what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws
You say you don’t understand I think you already have an answer. Is it accurate for me to say that you think it’s because we support pretty much anything done by a communist government against the West, and oppose anything done by Western liberal government against communist countries? I.e. we’re solely looking at who did something when deciding whether to support it instead of the merits of the thing itself? If so, I’m throwing that accusation right back at you. I think you blindly support pretty much anything Western governments do as long as it’s against one of the West’s enemies and blindly oppose anything communist governments do against the West.
Oh, this is on lemmy.ml. Should have noticed that first before I went into the comments.
Why do people like you even bother commenting stuff like this instead of just blocking us?
Genuinely curious.
What do you gain from commenting this? Why is it worth the apparent mental anguish of continuing to see our posts?
I think it’s to remind Lemmy noobs that not all Lemmy is equal and that some servers are seeded by government appointed handlers of fascist regimes.
Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your way of dismissing speech you don’t like?
Like the ones making news illegal lol?
Skill issue
I’m glad I don’t live in the EU
First time?
i’ve been saying it for years.
obviously, nobody likes a violent neighbor, and nobody likes russia invading ukraine. so much should be clear.
but, the fact that the EU just literally doesn’t allow russia to speak or to give any kind of explanatory statement, makes me thing that russia actually has good reason and EU does not want us to see that.
makes me thing that russia actually has good reason and EU does not want us to see that
Are you starting to notice the contradictions? Check this documentary out.
You say that Russia is not allowed to speak in the EU and state it as a fact. However I am living in the EU and still get to hear or read about e.g. what Lawrow has to say.
do you mean, what Tagesschau and other western newspapers report that lawrow says? because i’d rather hear it from themselves personally. otherwise it’s just a game of chinese whispers
Are all Europeans as evil as their oligarchs that want to raze Russia since time immemorial?
If European people supported these things, there would be no need for censorship.
Europeans supported it until it started hurting them financially. Now that the EU and USA economy starts hurting they’re going to crank up the censorship because murdering those pesky non-Aryans is starting to become a lot less popular.
Yes people are supporting Ukraine because le last attack was Russian and we are literally spread with propaganda.
I’ve always maintained the EU doesn’t have much time left and this kind of overreach makes me more convinced. They’re panicking hard up top.
Fun fact, this is objectively harsher than the Great Firewall, which does not have any criminal codes against sharing outside information.
The EU is more pro-censorship than China.
