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.
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?
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.
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.
Because the state exists as long as classes exist, and classes will continue to exist until production and distribution is fully collectivized. This requires highly advanced productive forces and the full conquest of political power by the working classes, which is a far way off.
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.
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?
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 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.
I think we should ban everyone or no one. Seeing as banning everyone will never happen we should ban no one. You’re just making up strawmen to attack me with. It’s a bit ridiculous and says a lot about you and nothing about me.
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.
You literally said they aren’t doing disinformation and then said the other side are. This is just whataboutsim. All sides are engaged in disinformation. What anyone else does has no bearing on what RT do. It’s exactly what I described.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast
Not quite, I made a comment here detailing the judgement; TLDR the law bans commercial distribution of RT content, and the court found that large sums of gifts & donations turn private individuals into commercial operators, thus banning them from distributing RT content. You can still operate a website that distributes RT content, so long as there are no monetary incentives to do so.
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.
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?
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.
Russia isn’t a single party state. Stop Just Saying Shit™
Of course… I totally forgot about all the other parties that have been in power since the fall of the USSR. My bad
I wish I could be as free as you and just change what words mean any time you get called out for lying with them
We all know the other parties are only allowed exist as long as they don’t threaten daddy Putin. Don’t be so gullible
Is Japan a one- party state?
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?
Because the state exists as long as classes exist, and classes will continue to exist until production and distribution is fully collectivized. This requires highly advanced productive forces and the full conquest of political power by the working classes, which is a far way off.
That’s coherent and very possibly true but from where I am sitting Communism is just as far off as the end of the global order of statehoods.
To resolve conflicts between the classes, the employers vs the employees
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.
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 that even other Western outlets have debunked? Or is that privilege reserved for “the good guys” in your mind?
You commented this earlier:
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.
I think we should ban everyone or no one. Seeing as banning everyone will never happen we should ban no one. You’re just making up strawmen to attack me with. It’s a bit ridiculous and says a lot about you and nothing about me.
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.
You literally said they aren’t doing disinformation and then said the other side are. This is just whataboutsim. All sides are engaged in disinformation. What anyone else does has no bearing on what RT do. It’s exactly what I described.
Not quite, I made a comment here detailing the judgement; TLDR the law bans commercial distribution of RT content, and the court found that large sums of gifts & donations turn private individuals into commercial operators, thus banning them from distributing RT content. You can still operate a website that distributes RT content, so long as there are no monetary incentives to do so.
deleted by creator
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.