[torcete]

Again, assuming separation of powers: In a democracy, ministries are part of the executive branch. Their role is to follow and implement the law, not to judge violations.

If a law is violated, then a judge, and not a ministry, should be the one to enforce it.

When an administrative body blocks access to a service without prior judicial oversight, it blurs the line between the executive and the judiciary. And since separation of powers is a key component of any democracy, this raises legitimate concerns about the quality of democratic checks and balances.

Just to be clear: I’m not arguing that unlicensed online gambling sites should remain accessible. The issue is how the restriction is carried out, and whether it respects democratic principles and institutional roles.

[the_gipsy]

It's simply not correct that a judge must always enforce a sentence before any executive action. This is the same everywhere in the world: the executive can take certain preventive or direct action without judiciary. Otherwise just nothing would work, criminals would have it very easy.

You may argue that blocking internet access should always go through judiciary, for some reason. But you can't claim that this was undemocratic, that's just spewing bullshit for the sake of it.