[bootsmann]

> The moment one finds themselves outside the groupthink

The RT ban is not about what RT publishes, you are free to publish their arguments more or less verbatim on your own site without getting sanctioned in Europe (which indeed some people do). The RT ban is about RT being a state owned propaganda network owned by the government thats waging an active war against Europe.

[zahlman]

If there's nothing wrong with what is being said, then why should it matter who says it? Does propaganda somehow gain effectiveness because it comes "from the source"?

[jpalawaga]

Sanctions are about impinging others freedom because they’re behaving badly.

“Why can’t I play with the kid who is in timeout? Is it because you hate my freedom?”

[tpoacher]

Except your analogy here should be more "there's a kid on timeout so nobody gets to play, just in case"

[zahlman]

I would think that enforcing economic sanctions would be a far more effective use of time and effort.

[throwaway290]

Shutting down a business = economic sanctions. Blocking domain of a web publication is part of shutting it down.

What do you prefer instead, to make domain registrars enforce sanctions instead of blocking on DNS level? That would quickly make so that no one with Russian passport is able to register a domain no matter how much we are against russia or putin

[bootsmann]

Because the people writing the laws within the EU are also acutely aware that phrasing this ban too broadly constrains freedom of speech. The way the ban is handed is walking the fine line between impinging freedom of speech and denying a enemy state from waging an information war. Romania had to rerun an election due to Russian inference, this isn’t just a phantom the EU made up to censor opinions it doesn’t like.

[ur-whale]

> The RT ban is about RT being a state owned propaganda network owned by the government thats waging an active war against Europe.

And ... ?

[multjoy]

Do you think allowing an enemy state free reign to broadcast propaganda to your population makes good tactical sense?

[dvdkon]

Freedom of speech rarely makes "tactical sense", which is why we as citizens need to continually fight for it.

[fireflash38]

The irony of freedom of speech, much like democracy in general, is that it can destroy itself.

[logicchains]

If you believe in any kind of system of morality, it's absolutely possible for one's own government to be in the moral wrong and the enemy government to be in the moral right. Censorship means the citizens may never learn that their country is the bad guy in that case.

[zahlman]

This is inconsistent with the upthread argument:

> The RT ban is not about what RT publishes, you are free to publish their arguments more or less verbatim on your own site without getting sanctioned in Europe (which indeed some people do).

[jdiff]

It is not. People are allowed to do what they will, as long as those people are not the outlet itself. The propaganda outlet loses control over it and cannot push the media through, only hope that others pull it from them.

[multjoy]

The difference is they're not an enemy sovereign state. This isn't contradictory or illogical.

[0x073]

paradox of tolerance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[zx8080]

somehow missed the fact that the EU has declared war already

[multjoy]

You don't need to declare war to have enemies. After all, Russia has launched chemical and radiological attacks on EU states.

[raverbashing]

Some people really do not need their holidays north of Seoul prevented

[Matl]

Right, but as long as you wage genocide against non-Europeans then Europe will not only support you, but will go after the people protesting it. That's the morals of European leaders today.

[raverbashing]

Every person and institution have a limited number of flips to give

My GAF meter is pretty low for anti-secular groups that shot first. And their own neighbours who were "supposed" to be their allied seem to think the same

[Matl]

Apart from the fact that you seem to be equating a whole people with one group, you also seem to conveniently not realize that the government committing the genocide is a non-secular messianic one, with a deep seated belief of the superiority of their own religious group over any other, but particularly feel themselves superior to the people they occupy for decades, who of course despite them being occupied are always supposed to find compassion and understanding for their occupier first, otherwise the occupation cannot end, right?

There were and are plenty of reasonable groups one could work with, but the genocide is about grabbing land, asserting dominance and exacting revenge, while feeding a victimhood complex that is never able to acknowledge its own mistakes.

[FirmwareBurner]

So why haven't we banned Israeli news sites and companies for their war/genocide in Gaza?

[simonask]

Because Israel is not engaged in a war against Europe.

[FirmwareBurner]

Russia is also not engaged in a direct war with Europe yet we still sanction them because they are by proxy, similar to Israel: Israel's actions in Gaza are creating waves of refugees that Europe has to take in, and then we have the potential terrorist attacks by those people as revenge for Europe's military aid to Israel who see Europe as partly to blame for destruction of their home country.

Israel definitely should be sanctioned till it stops its war crimes because doing nothing will directly affect us.

[simonask]

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to completely ignore the historical context of these two conflicts. There is no question that Russia's war in Ukraine is a proxy war against the West - they say so directly by justifying it as a defense against "NATO encroachment" and making demands that the Ukraine can never, say, join the EU.

Israel should be sanctioned because of the war crimes and the genocide perpetrated by their government, I agree, but that's a different thing.

[zosima]

Russia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe.

Neither Ukraine nor Israel is part of EU or NATO.

[depressedpanda]

> Russia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe.

Ukraine is most definitely a part of Europe.

[zosima]

Yes, and so is big parts of Russia. Attacking one country is not the same as attacking a continent.

[simonask]

Their very justification for the war is supposed "NATO encroachment". It is very clearly a proxy war against the EU.

[dragonwriter]

> Russia has attacked Ukraine.

Moldova and Georgia and Ukraine, as relates to its aggression in Europe.

[Xelbair]

i would like to remind you that Germany was one of the biggest recipients of russian gas in Europe, and worked actively to keep it flowing despite the war, and didn't try to break away from their dependence for a very long time.

It's pure hypocrisy coupled with conformity - or rather virtue signalling. Send junk weapons to Ukraine to showcase that you do support the cause, meanwhile keep buying gas the same time go after their propaganda because that looks nice.