For starters, it'd be hard to argue that RT is "operating" within the EU if the only way to access their content was via TOR. It's not; you can still just view their website as far as my colleagues are telling me.
The thing that's being denied here is their ability to operating business and broadcast - already a very highly regulated thing in most (all?) countries, within EU borders. In practical terms this means having to access RT servers probably outside of the EU, broadcast signals can't be sent within it for that channel, etc.
The internet is not broadcasting.
Were this intended to stop people from viewing it online as well, it would specifically call out RT as Illegal content in some way, so as to invoke one of the possible reasons to actually block their website.[1]
EU rules on open internet give you the right as a user to access and/or distribute any online content and services you choose. Your internet provider cannot block, slow down or discriminate against any online content, applications or services, except in 3 specific cases:
- to comply with legal obligations, such as a court order blocking specific illegal content
- to preserve the security and integrity of the network, for example to combat viruses or malware
- to manage exceptional or temporary network congestion
[1]: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-tel...
[2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
> transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed.
Since this is a legal obligation, I fail so see how EU protections against ISP censorship would apply. The "court order blocking illegal content" is an example, not an exhaustive list of the ways a legal obligation to censorship could pertain.
> transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed.
Since this is a legal obligation, I fail so see how EU protections against ISP censorship would apply.
My read on this is that this is designed to prevent situations where ISP, cable, satellite, et. al. providers have more direct involvement in its transmission or distribution. Consider cases where companies offer a streaming service that sometimes includes news channels (e.g.: Netflix), or ISPs that offer their own streaming services doing the same. In those cases, those companies are taking an active role in deploying the content, so they would fall under the umbrella of transmitting or distributing it.
The "court order blocking illegal content" is an example, not an exhaustive list of the ways a legal obligation to censorship could pertain.
This is also in the context of a blog post wondering if TOR is now illegal because of this. Would that make VPNs illegal as well? How would the EU even consider shutting down VPN service providers in other countries?
I will gladly stand corrected on this if I'm wrong and the ultimate result here is that RT becomes inaccessible to the EU based on this law.
However, it will not affect TOR any more than it would affect VPN providers, anyone offering VPS services, etc.
> it is necessary, consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular with the right to freedom of expression and information as recognised in Article 11 thereof, to introduce further restrictive measures to urgently suspend the broadcasting activities of such media outlets in the Union
What. Don't gaslight me with sentences like this in a official document from the EU. They are saying x and !x at the same time in one paragraph. Freedom of expression, and information?!
I suppose we should remember that it's not censorship if a private company does it. Private companies are free to conduct business with whoever they want, and the EU is not a government institution and as such is not capable of performing censorship. /s
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
They're saying Article 11 already accounts for these scenarios. (I'd presume they learned from the US experience, where it was left to the courts to provide the "ok but there are obviously exceptions" relief valves to the Constitution.)
If so, they learned exactly the wrong lesson. It was wrong for the US courts to do that, but at least they were acting on their own and not claiming some justification in the text of the Constitution. It's far worse to have these exceptions undermining basic natural human rights written directly into the EU charter. The inclusion of Article 11 essentially makes the rest of the charter pointless—you have "guaranteed" legal rights, except when those in power decide that you don't, for what seem to them to be good reasons at the time. I doubt there is an example of any systematic infringement of rights throughout history which wasn't cast as being in support of "public safety" or "national security" or "protection of health or morals", or some variation or combination thereof.
- they think the restriction is necessary;
- they have considered whether the said rights outweigh the need for the restriction, and believe they do not.
You conflate a number of things here. First of all, Russia Today and Sputnik are no EU citizens or corporations, they are entities of the Russian government. Therefore, they are not protected from being banned or censored in the EU. And for what it's worth, their actual journalists still can work in the EU, and publish their work, just not under the banner of the two banned entities - that's assuming they want to work for the dictatorship, which many seem to not want any more [1].
Second, the "firehose of lies" that Russia Today and Sputnik have used over the last decade to sow distrust into virtually every aspect of our lives is an attack on freedom of expression here. Hard to use your freedom of expression if you end up getting death threats from a bunch of propaganda-brainwashed trolls (see e.g. the recent thread about a German anti-vaxxer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30288582). Citizens of the UK can't enjoy any EU-guaranteed human rights any more because Russian propaganda and dark money goaded a tiny majority towards Brexit.
Third, Russia is a country that has committed what can be seen as acts of hostility towards the EU. Not just the mentioned propaganda warfare, but also cyberattacks, violations of airspace, or the string of attempted and successful murders of Russian dissidents using highly dangerous radioactive and chemical weapons. The European Union is under no obligation to support any rights of any entity associated to an enemy, an enemy that broke all rules of diplomacy and international law.
[1]: https://www.t-online.de/finanzen/unternehmen-verbraucher/id_...
That's not a universal definition, no. E.g. in the EU Facebook and Twitter have lost cases where they blocked posts for "ToS violations" and were ordered to restore them on free speech grounds. (whereas apparently in the US the perspective is more that banning corporations from banning people is violating the corps free speech rights, and doesn't see as much of a balance there)
I really detest this line of thought. What good are the concept of human rights when people declare that private companies by definition cannot infringe on them?
I've watched RT on a few occasions and I never thought their reporting outright propaganda. It does have a clear non-pro-West bias which gives you a dose of awareness that Western reporting is biased too.
I also note other news networks have been happily spouting anti-Russian propaganda as well (i.e. "Ghost of Kiev", "Miss Ukraine Fighting", and the "Snake Island Martyrs" to name but 3).
I also note none of the Western Media talk about shelling, murder, and rape of the ethnic Russian civilians in the Donbas since 2014. They call it "propaganda" now but 6 years ago these same western media outlets reported that "Fascist Azov Battalion Ukrainian Military were shelling and murdering Donbas "separatists" (now western media calls them terrorists).
News shouldn't have bias, full stop. news should just report the facts and let the viewer/listener decide. However, bar that both sides should have their voices herd in a democracy.
This choice should be up to the individual and their beliefs.
But some administrative authority claiming that it should be closed, then getting it closed in a few hours? with hundreds of actual professional journalists getting shown the door as a consequence? That's just the sort of shit Putin does. I want my country to do better than Putin in all matters, please.
This is the problem. For effective propaganda you don't want it to be easily detectable as such. Therefore the majority of your material isn't directly propaganda. I read somewhere it's 5-10% is the payload. You don't make that obviously propaganda of course too.
On a channel like RT or Sputnik this is how you are going to operate - not least because those channels are for an external audience, who does have other sources.
Inside of Russia your propaganda probably works roughly similarly, but you can have more of it, and you can be more confident the audience doesn't regular access other sources. In a time of war you can go full propaganda.
I've watched RT in the past and been surprised by some of the reporting, and covering things that seemed not really covered by regular sources.
The problem is because of what it is it's very hard to know what's real reporting and what is propaganda payload.
So I avoid it.
I don't think there is a problem limiting it's availability. Right now it's super freely available.
What's the bar you might ask? That's hard. Partly it's intent, and that's hard to prove. You could also work out how much and how bad the propaganda is on a channel. Again not necessarily easily.
Really though the problem here is a trust problem with Putins Russia. It's well documented their activities in disinformation and with election interference.
They are not currently a good actor. This is covered in part of Hypernormalization documentary (and others).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT0bzehQgO8
If you believe this is the case (as I do) then the bar for their restriction is actually pretty low. I think it's in the interest of the world that access to propaganda vehicles, such as RT and Sputnik, should be limited.
Now watch it more often and you'll notice even more bias and outright wrong translations of interviews, along with well cut footage.
Now make it the only source of news (well, along with other channels, RT is not the only one) for Russian speakers and you'll understand why they're seemingly stupid - every single Russian outside Russia I've spoken with believes in some dumbass shit like Covid conspiracies, or "the West" always antagonizing Russia, or Putin being a good leader, or the war being justified, or there being no war.
It's not only RT, these people actively go to Odnoklassniki (Russian Fecebook) or Russian Fecebook sites for their news.
It would be fine if these news are accurate/neutral. But they're always against "the West" (which now includes half of Asia, so I don't even know anymore).
If one guy seems like an asshole, he may be an asshole. If two guys are assholes, you may be unlucky. If three guys are assholes, maybe you're the asshole.
> It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed.
So one way to interpret this is that all ISPs are currently violating this simply by enabling end-to-end-encrypted communication. Any service that would enable or facilitate sending RT streams (ie encrypted communication) are violating this.
Heck, even hosting a blog platform where someone posts a screenshot of the RT website would be in trouble. Cloud providers might have to close the accounts of a significant portion of their customers to cover their behinds.
This article must be revised (or even revoked). I’m certain that it is unconstitutional in more than one EU country.
According to EU officials, it does not.
I've sent out some e-mails, if what you say is true I will amend it.
It applies everywhere. Germany and Poland courts said that they interpret this principle is against their constitutions. The consequence is that they need to either:
- Change their interpretation of their constitution
- Change their constitution
- Leave the EU
It's a basic principle of participation in a Union. Germany's or Poland's case is the same as if a State of the US decided that some federal law or the US constitution doesn't apply in that territory because their constitution prevails or that the state supreme court can overrule the decisions of the US supreme court.
The EU case is much easier than the US, of course, because EU Member States have the right to unilaterally decide to secede. So they can always just leave if they really don't want to comply with EU laws. They have no excuse whatsoever to whine about them.
The first is that it's not that EU laws are more important, it's that by ratifying the EU treaties the members have ceded the power to act in some areas to the EU as a whole.
This applies uniformly to all member states, Germany included.
The issue that can arise is when there's a disagreement on whether or not a specific power was ceded or not, the problem being that on the one side we have the national constitutional (or equivalent) courts which are the ultimate authority for the member in question, while on the other we have the ECJ which is defined as the ultimate authority in what the Treaties say
What you're probably referring to is the recent case in which the German ConstCourt said that a judgement by the ECJ was incorrect and adopted its own, it was then resolved by some judicial diplomacy. That issue remains and it's arguably inevitable whenever multiple levels of government share power.
A further asterisk is that this is a freedom of expression issue, which is handled at three distinct levels.
At the EU level the law is likely to be found partially in contradiction with the Charter of Fundamental rights (which only applies to EU law and EU institutions or national institutions executing EU law), I don't think the broadcasting ban in itself would be but I'm pretty sure that someone posting clips of RT for instance would be found protected by the charter
However there's also a national level since the EU doesn't actually have any own enforcement, therefore the individual countries will have to adopt actual punishments and enforcement mechanisms which are then subject to respecting the national freedom of expression requirements (fundamental rights are generally of constitutional significance, so they're at least equal in precedence to EU treaties), technically the EU commission could start an infringement procedure if it deems the actions taken unsatisfactory and that process ultimately ends at the ECJ, however while the ECJ could tell the member state it has to effectively ignore their own court (which the member state can't do anyway) but since that would lead to an unresolvable constitutional crisis the ECJ is unlikely to pick that hill to die on and it has a pretty convenient clause in its mandate saying "we will respect each country's constitutional identity" which would be easily applicable here
Finally there's the ECHR, which is another international court, integrated in the member states legal system by its own treaty (confusingly the acronym is the same for the court and for the treaty) with the sole purpose of serving as a baseline for fundamental rights. The EU is not a party to the ECHR treaty (accession stalled) but all of its members are, so if any member were challenged in this court and said "we're violating article 10 because of this EU law" the ECHR would say "cool story, don't care" (if it finds a breach). This is not immediately a precedent for other countries, but others would likely file similar motions
More realistically however this is just going to be interpreted to prevent the sanctioned entities from setting up shells companies to evade it
That said, like you and the OP, I am not a lawyer, or even a citizen of an EU country.
This sections is essentially targeting people who would for example start a "not-rt.eu" broadcasting rt content.
Instead the more important question is whether people running tor have to take measures to block access to RT as they may be ISPs.
To use some abductive reasoning, think about how this would apply generally: the law is clearly not written to ban encryption, even though your interpretation would suggest that any encryption amounts to intentional circumvention. If that sounds wrong to you, it's because you've confused the intent/object that the law is concerned with.
We live in a networked world. There's an unbroken physical connection between your hardwired ISP connection and every device connected to Russia (less so with starlink and woman and 5g, but still. )
It's resilient by design, and damaging that, even for good reasons, has secondary consequences.
Going after tor nodes would be overreaching and shortsighted.
Not really surprised by the double standard but it's pretty obvious this time.
If it's western it's "news" and if it's non western it's "propaganda". This is the modern equivalent of Stalin's iron curtain
Not sure if this strategy is the safest option globally. Russia wants a buffer from nato give them some assurance.
How can you even think about segregating Russia, if China and India aren't onboard? Yes, these two countries are not going to sanction Russia. Or do you want China and India sanctioned too, remember if you sanction everybody then you are sanctioning yourself.
All they can do is brutalize civilians with military force.
The West (aside from arming local militias to the teeth) is mobilizing the civil society.
No boots on the ground, not even much impact to our lives beyond the inevitable supply shocks. We are sticking it to Putin from our sofas, via democratic government.
That said, RT alone surely must have caused many Covid deaths due to the doubts about the vaccinations and other measures they have been spreading in the past years.
It is a plague that needs to be eradicated. That isn't silencing a nation though, that is silencing a cancerous government that is infecting every nation it can.
Banning a news channel dedicated to defending the murder of 2000 civilians? Not so much.
It's also pretty clear that they do have the ability to shut out a company from doing business within their borders, so I'm unclear why media corporations should be getting a free pass compared with other industries.
I also see it as turning up the tension in a way that may be hard to dial back down later. When you are cutting your self of from information, you are also cutting yourself of from the information that lets you reevaluate that decision.
This is not "we ban Russia's news", it's "we ban Russia government publications pretending to be news and benefiting financially from it".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
No, but I am aware of this, I even thought to mention it, and I sorely hope that I am proven wrong. However, my concern is that the ban explicitly does apply to the medium itself.
In particular, article 12 bans participation in "activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent prohibitions". Can you think of any reason for why Tor would not be considered to circumvent the ban?
Article 12 is completely unmodified except for the scope of parties involved. Since the original (2014) regulation didn't ban Tor, I think it's a safe assumption that this one doesn't either.
The more detailed answer: the article actually reads as follows:
> It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, [...]
"Knowingly and intentionally" is the operative phrase here. In order to show that this article poses a threat to Tor's legality, you'd need to show at either Tor's operators or Tor itself intentionally provides service to RT. This is a stronger standard than passive service, the kind Tor actually provides.
[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
Because plenty of people use Tor for accessing things which aren't covered by this particular ban? Sure, many of them may be illegal in other ways, but not all of them. If using Tor isn't enough in itself to prove you're buying drugs, why would it be enough to prove you're accessing banned content here?
Things that never happened: - Ghost of Kiev - Sunflower Seed Lady - Snake Island Defiance - Miss Ukraine Airsoft Fighter
Then I get sources of info closed off to me, I find that exceedingly concerning. The west is winning the information war, but at the cost of the truth? I’m of a mixed mind for sure.
same thing can be said about so-called "news" from RT, no?
I'm pretty sure sunflower lady is definitely real, there was a video.
We are loosing our freedom and values every day. Because of our safety, of course.
Making it illegal to route packets to them and to circumvent the block? Garbage tier laws.
Plus it isn't just about the content. Running a TV network can be a massively profitable business, and in this case the money is going out of EU citizens' pockets and straight to the Russian government. Pretty contradictory to impose sanctions and spend money arming Ukraine while also giving Russia a free revenue stream.
The entire point of a free country is that people can handle the information. If not, why even bother?
In a conflict enemy propaganda will be shut down, and enemy assets will be targeted. This means severe economic sanctions, blocking RT/Sputnik, and arming the Ukrainian armed forces to the teeth.
With luck, the Ukrainians will be able to end this without the situation getting out of hand. If not, this might escalate and get real ugly real fast.
In WW2 there was propaganda broadcast from Germany, in English and in MW to reach the UK and SW to reach the USA, by William Joyce. He was called Lord Haw-Haw because he pretended to by posh. His broadcasts were designed to demoralize the allied countries.
No doubt people in neutral countries tuned in. But that isn't really relevant. The point of the broadcasts was to reach non-neutral people wherever they might be.
He was captured in 1945 and hanged for treason.
Not officially, but they provide arms with explicit purpose of supporting one side and economically punishing the other. That's effectively a proxy war whether we call it one or not.
There's plenty of support for having sites like RT.
Greetings from a EU member in Belgium
is this not a failure of czech/european society at large instead of RT?
“Communism” equals the original sin and “communists” is basically a slur for about a century now.
After America worked so hard to unleash the most destructive weapon in human history, everyone should have cowed and crowned them the undisputed hegemons of the Earth. The idea of anyone daring to set themselves up as an antipode was extremely offensive.
Even after the fall of the USSR and the convenient appearance of Muslims and Chinese offering themselves as adversary to All That We Cherish, apparently the West can’t resist such a big and easy dart board to pin their failings upon;
Unrest in foreign nations? It’s the Russians. Division at home? Damn Ruskies again.
I wonder if some racism also comes into play here; Here we were, after so much War, with all the white nations agreeing to get along hereafter, but then there’s these “other” white people who are somehow different and don’t want to play along.
After we snuff out Russia, who will we turn upon next?
This is a very US perspective I think. Here in Germany there are many that think communism is fairer than capitalism (although perhaps unrealistic to attain). Insulting something/someone by saying something is communist or someone is a commy is not really something that happens here (except perhaps in politics).
[Edit] Just to add some perspective:
Communist parties in european parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_parties_repr...
Even large european countries have communist parties, some even voted into office (such as france, spain) and in the case of Spain even in the ruling coalition.
Implying this is a western view neglects to realize how much US vs. Soviet propaganda has shaped the US population.
It has nothing to with the average Russian, but everything to do with the Government, the dictator, and those who willingly support them.
That isn't to say the west hasn't done anything wrong. But by my account, we can pin the following on Russia:
- Installing puppets in foreign governments
- Schroeder
- Trump / GOP
- Pushing for Brexit
- Sent children to war
- Committed 11 distinct war crimes in just 8 days, including shooting civies and children that were fleeing, hospitals, and wearing UN and Ua colours.
Russia isn't the problem, the problem is the person at the driver seat that is actively threatening a nuclear holocaust.
If the West includes new joiners from behind the Iron Curtain, then let me tell you that any "demonisation" of Russia is deserved.
I'm too young to have experienced the communist times, but based on what I heard from my parents and from history, being a forcible subject to Russia sucks. And this is exactly what Russia is trying to achieve in Ukraine (if not just outright destruction instead).
I was willing to give Russia a loan of trust and see how its post-USSR identity evolved. Unfortunately, it seems like that hope wasn't met with reality.
Soon your crypto portfolio will vanish too ;)
2. fake news sucks, but do you really want a government agency deciding what speech is approved or not?
One example: In Germany it's forbidden by law to deny the holocaust, use nazi symbols, greetings or other media from that era.
And some state sponsored TV telling your they're saving people or helping some states while raiding their homes, killing them and using thermobaric weapons is ok ? That this won't create an uproar among all families and relatives ?
You have at least laws against defamation and this is nothing else than lying and laughing into the face of people.
What you certainly do is restrict youtube channels of joe rogan, trump and facebook ads for elections. And nobody did sue for free speech or won a case. So the general direction is pretty clear.