This new EU court ruling is part of an anti-democratic epidemic spreading around so-called ‘liberal democracies’
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/07/05/eu-approves-law/
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
In general, your posts are pretty unbiased, but this one is crazy biased. The writer literally calls Ukraine “nazi-riddled”. It’s like the main Russian propaganda talking point.
On top of that, banning a country’s propaganda arm isn’t a wild restriction of objective truth. RT can post “water is wet” it gets shared, then they change it to “Ukraine is 100% nazis”. It’s completely pointless to share anything RT says or does and only serves to further Russia’s propaganda.
Does it matter to you whether it’s true or not? Obviously it’s Russian propaganda, but that doesn’t make automatically untrue.
Read this on the topic: Ukraine’s military has a real Nazi problem. It’s an actually well written article by a Ukrainian academic with PHD in history.
The larger issue is that you think you’re not reading propaganda yourself. That there is a free press that reports objectively. Even if there was, it wouldn’t be presented equally to you because of algorithms. Obviously you can’t trust what the enemy writes, but it’s equally foolish to trust what your own captured news media are telling you. It’s approaching a fever pitch here. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for sharing a video.
This isn’t about hate speech, this is about a difference of opinion on a geopolitical conflict, a proxy war. Imagine you weren’t allowed to share videos because they are all “main Palestinian talking points”.
I’m honestly fucking shocked. I didn’t imagine we’d get here this fast.
using “these people exist in this country” as justification for bombing and killing their citizens is exactly what Israel is doing with Palestine right now (hamas is there!!! blow everything up and take their land). This is the exact same thing. It doesn’t matter how true it is, there is zero reason to justify attacking another country in the modern day and age. Zero. I don’t care if the entire country is 100% nazis. Someone existing in another country does not justify any sort of attack.
So yeah, having that be in a news article used as justification just proves that the propaganda is working. Even on that Ukrainian PhD. It’s irrelevant how many nazis are there. Let Ukraine deal with that.
So in other words, you don’t care if something is true or false, if it’s “politically incorrect” it needs to be suppressed and it’s morally wrong to point it out. MAGAts, climate change deniers or anti-vaxxer do the same.
Wow, you really showed that straw man who’s boss!
ML users and strawmen, a match made in heaven.
Search for the term putinism and how it checks boxes for neo-fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putinism#Relation_to_fascism
And no, I’m not a fan of Putin at all. Two things can be true at the same time.
This is a useful modern definition of fascism: What Is Fascism? An Excerpt From “Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It” | Truthout
LOL. Read the whole article and not the only part that is comfortable for you. Because some specialists believed this way only when russia wasn’t engaged in war and hasn’t have mobilization.
There is no such thing as unbiased. We are all biased by definition since we have our experiences and thoughts that shape us.
RT is already banned in the whole Europe. This ruling is not about banning RT, it’s about negating truth as a valid defense against prosecution. I couldn’t care less about RT specifically. But replace RT with any other entity and then ask yourself if your position would be the same? It never ends with one entity. Once they have the power to use it, they will use it again.
It’s another area where EU is erasing fundamental rights, just like they are trying to do with ID verification, chat control and the recent wave of expanded copyright enforcement where they are literally giving private entities access to ban anything they want.
Usually one would expect news to at least attempt to report in an objective manner. Funny how the site they “stole” the court case link from reports on this much better, covering both sides of the argument.
Absolutely this ruling was about upholding the ban on RT. The court ruled that if you take donations while sharing RT videos, the sanctions also apply to you, and you are criminally liable. It was not about sharing a random link on facebook.
I also do not agree with the decision, but claiming that this ruling is about negating truth is nonsense.