5 ms·

The EU is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-Russian or anti-Israeli. Some of those targeted are repo

by submeta 10mo ago

The EU is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-Russian or anti-Israeli. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. This suggests a growing conviction within the EU that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?

realusername 10mo ago
> Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Yeah sure """journalists""", the list of individuals under sanction in the EU is small and usually there's a good reason they are in that list.
- submeta 10mo ago
  The size of the list is irrelevant. What matters is the precedent. Restricting banking or travel based on political assessments, without criminal conviction or transparent judicial review, is a serious breach of the rule of law. Simply asserting “good reasons” is not an argument.
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    May I introduce you to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-foreign-visitors-trump-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-for...
  - realusername 10mo ago
    All the people in this list are criminals of various kind, money laundrers and some of them even terrorists. You should ask yourself the opposite, why people supporting Russian views in the EU often are from a criminal background?
    - submeta 10mo ago
      Labeling everyone on a sanctions list as a “criminal” or “terrorist” dodges the core issue, which is the erosion of due process. EU sanctions are administrative measures, not criminal convictions: people are listed by executive decision, often on the basis of political and security assessments, without indictment, trial, or a judgment by an independent court. That means being sanctioned does not logically equal “proven criminal”; it means the person has been designated by a political body that, by design, operates outside the safeguards of criminal procedure
      - realusername 10mo ago
        Fine, the day it affects real people, I'll also push for a change. I doubt it will ever be though. For now excuse me but I won't cry for the poor money laundrers of the Russian mafia and their yachts. This list is public as well, feel free to consult it.
AlphaGeekZulu 10mo ago
The XX is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-XX or anti-XX. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Some of them are called "stupid" or "pigs". This suggests a growing conviction within the XX that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else? Try to find matches for the XX placeholders!
- submeta 10mo ago
  And what exactly did you add to the discussion, beyond posturing
  - AlphaGeekZulu 10mo ago
    Logic! If the described properties define totalitarianism, then they do so for any value that can truthfully be substituted for XX. I suggest checking this for all ~195 possible values.
    - submeta 10mo ago
      No you did not. The XX substitution is a clever rhetorical move, but it misses what’s actually being debated. This isn’t about whether a logical predicate can be made to fit many countries; it’s about whether certain state practices are becoming acceptable. What’s concerning here isn’t “wrong opinions being criticized,” it’s administrative punishment without criminal process: loss of banking access, travel bans, and professional exclusion imposed by executive designation, justified after the fact as “they must be criminals anyway.” That logic works for any XX, and that’s exactly the problem. This doesn’t make the EU “totalitarian,” but it does point to an illiberal drift where due process is treated as optional if the target is politically unsympathetic. The precedent matters more than the headcount. Once viewpoint + security assessment is enough to trigger real penalties, the boundary between law enforcement and political enforcement starts to blur, regardless of which XX you plug in.
whynotmaybe 10mo ago
It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited. For example, in many countries it's illegal to say that WWII concentration camps didn't exist. In Belgium, a media can't make a publication that mocks the King.
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  If Congress had a spine they would make it illegal for American corporations to collaborate with foreign countries in restricting any speech which would be legal in America. And if the EU had a spine, the would blanket ban all American social media. We're in this situation now because both sides are pussyfooting around the source of conflict, fundamentally incompatible values, never seeking resolution because it's easier to just continue with the status quo and ignore the resulting tensions. No respect for either side.
  - potatototoo99 10mo ago
    They are not pussyfooting, if governments did what you say everything would be illegal and all borders closed, war soon to follow. Collaborating with foreign countries is what it means to find resolution to issues.
    - mikkupikku 10mo ago
      Oh please, give me a break. WW3 because Europe has European social media instead of being stuck on American properties? I can always count on HN for the most insane takes. This social media shit obviously needs to be based in the country it operates, that's the only way these international moderation policy issues can ever be resolved.
- dangus 10mo ago
  Next time you make an argument like this you might want to try to make one that isn’t easily debunked by a quick google search: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jail-for-lese-majesty/ https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jai... Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has. As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist. Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.
m4ck_ 10mo ago
Seems reasonable considering that Russia has absolutely no respect for European borders or laws. Why should they allow Russian assets to further damage Europe? They are literally waging war against Europe, and it's not just limited to Ukraine. Russia has staged assassinations on European soil using radioactive and chemical weapons. They've sabotaged civilian and military infrastructure (both digitally and physically), plotted to bomb civilian cargo flights, etc. How much farther should Russia and it's agents be allowed to go before they're considered security risks?
touwer 10mo ago
It's not perfect, but by all means it's better than the so called free speech of the US-Maga cult
dangus 10mo ago
Why don’t you go ahead and finish your argument? The EU is hypocritical, and the restrictions on freedom you see in Russia are actually way less extreme versions of the exact same laws in the books in Europe. Europe did it first and Russia is way more reasonable about it. I swear you’re not even very far from repeating a Steve Rosenberg Vladimir Putin exchange verbatim. It would be kind of hilarious how gullible the tech libertarian bro demographic is to Russian propaganda if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.
- submeta 10mo ago
  So instead of exchanging arguments, you prefer to put people on sanctions lists, because they are on the wrong side from your standpoint? Is this the Europe you want to live in?
  - dangus 10mo ago
    You still haven't explained who is on a sanction list and why, so I really don't see how your argument is anything more than vague anti-EU sentiment. It sounds like you're talking about Red Media, which I had to look up on my own because of how vague your argument was to begin with. The organization claims it has been targeted for the content of its reporting, although the German government says that it Red Media operates under the Turkish AFA Medya umbrella that has close ties to RT and Russian funding. I think the obvious way to see which side deserves more grains of salt is to see if any other journalistic outlets have been sanctioned that report in similar ways. It seems like Germany has only sanctioned this specific media company that has obvious ties to Russia, not every outlet that has done Palestine-sympathetic or Israel-skeptical reporting.
    - frm88 10mo ago
      To be fair Red Media's ties to Russian Financing remains unproven and then there is this other fact: Anthony Blinken, former U.S. Secretary of State alleged the Russian connection and had their social media accounts on Google/Meta deleted/banned and Germany usually follows the U.S. https://perspektive-online.net/2025/05/nach-politischem-und-medialem-druck-red-media-stellt-betrieb-ein/ https://perspektive-online.net/2025/05/nach-politischem-und-... He did the same with African Stream under the same allegations. https://westafricaweekly.com/meta-suspends-african-stream-accounts-following-us-state-departments-accusation/ https://westafricaweekly.com/meta-suspends-african-stream-ac...

by submeta 10mo ago

realusername 10mo ago

> Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Yeah sure """journalists""", the list of individuals under sanction in the EU is small and usually there's a good reason they are in that list.

submeta 10mo ago
The size of the list is irrelevant. What matters is the precedent. Restricting banking or travel based on political assessments, without criminal conviction or transparent judicial review, is a serious breach of the rule of law. Simply asserting “good reasons” is not an argument.
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  May I introduce you to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-foreign-visitors-trump-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-for...
- realusername 10mo ago
  All the people in this list are criminals of various kind, money laundrers and some of them even terrorists. You should ask yourself the opposite, why people supporting Russian views in the EU often are from a criminal background?
  - submeta 10mo ago
    Labeling everyone on a sanctions list as a “criminal” or “terrorist” dodges the core issue, which is the erosion of due process. EU sanctions are administrative measures, not criminal convictions: people are listed by executive decision, often on the basis of political and security assessments, without indictment, trial, or a judgment by an independent court. That means being sanctioned does not logically equal “proven criminal”; it means the person has been designated by a political body that, by design, operates outside the safeguards of criminal procedure
    - realusername 10mo ago
      Fine, the day it affects real people, I'll also push for a change. I doubt it will ever be though. For now excuse me but I won't cry for the poor money laundrers of the Russian mafia and their yachts. This list is public as well, feel free to consult it.

AlphaGeekZulu 10mo ago

The XX is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-XX or anti-XX. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Some of them are called "stupid" or "pigs". This suggests a growing conviction within the XX that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else? Try to find matches for the XX placeholders!

submeta 10mo ago
And what exactly did you add to the discussion, beyond posturing
- AlphaGeekZulu 10mo ago
  Logic! If the described properties define totalitarianism, then they do so for any value that can truthfully be substituted for XX. I suggest checking this for all ~195 possible values.
  - submeta 10mo ago
    No you did not. The XX substitution is a clever rhetorical move, but it misses what’s actually being debated. This isn’t about whether a logical predicate can be made to fit many countries; it’s about whether certain state practices are becoming acceptable. What’s concerning here isn’t “wrong opinions being criticized,” it’s administrative punishment without criminal process: loss of banking access, travel bans, and professional exclusion imposed by executive designation, justified after the fact as “they must be criminals anyway.” That logic works for any XX, and that’s exactly the problem. This doesn’t make the EU “totalitarian,” but it does point to an illiberal drift where due process is treated as optional if the target is politically unsympathetic. The precedent matters more than the headcount. Once viewpoint + security assessment is enough to trigger real penalties, the boundary between law enforcement and political enforcement starts to blur, regardless of which XX you plug in.

whynotmaybe 10mo ago

It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited. For example, in many countries it's illegal to say that WWII concentration camps didn't exist. In Belgium, a media can't make a publication that mocks the King.

mikkupikku 10mo ago
If Congress had a spine they would make it illegal for American corporations to collaborate with foreign countries in restricting any speech which would be legal in America. And if the EU had a spine, the would blanket ban all American social media. We're in this situation now because both sides are pussyfooting around the source of conflict, fundamentally incompatible values, never seeking resolution because it's easier to just continue with the status quo and ignore the resulting tensions. No respect for either side.
- potatototoo99 10mo ago
  They are not pussyfooting, if governments did what you say everything would be illegal and all borders closed, war soon to follow. Collaborating with foreign countries is what it means to find resolution to issues.
  - mikkupikku 10mo ago
    Oh please, give me a break. WW3 because Europe has European social media instead of being stuck on American properties? I can always count on HN for the most insane takes. This social media shit obviously needs to be based in the country it operates, that's the only way these international moderation policy issues can ever be resolved.
dangus 10mo ago
Next time you make an argument like this you might want to try to make one that isn’t easily debunked by a quick google search: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jail-for-lese-majesty/ https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jai... Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has. As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist. Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.

m4ck_ 10mo ago

Seems reasonable considering that Russia has absolutely no respect for European borders or laws. Why should they allow Russian assets to further damage Europe? They are literally waging war against Europe, and it's not just limited to Ukraine. Russia has staged assassinations on European soil using radioactive and chemical weapons. They've sabotaged civilian and military infrastructure (both digitally and physically), plotted to bomb civilian cargo flights, etc. How much farther should Russia and it's agents be allowed to go before they're considered security risks?

touwer 10mo ago

It's not perfect, but by all means it's better than the so called free speech of the US-Maga cult

dangus 10mo ago

Why don’t you go ahead and finish your argument? The EU is hypocritical, and the restrictions on freedom you see in Russia are actually way less extreme versions of the exact same laws in the books in Europe. Europe did it first and Russia is way more reasonable about it. I swear you’re not even very far from repeating a Steve Rosenberg Vladimir Putin exchange verbatim. It would be kind of hilarious how gullible the tech libertarian bro demographic is to Russian propaganda if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.

submeta 10mo ago
So instead of exchanging arguments, you prefer to put people on sanctions lists, because they are on the wrong side from your standpoint? Is this the Europe you want to live in?
- dangus 10mo ago
  You still haven't explained who is on a sanction list and why, so I really don't see how your argument is anything more than vague anti-EU sentiment. It sounds like you're talking about Red Media, which I had to look up on my own because of how vague your argument was to begin with. The organization claims it has been targeted for the content of its reporting, although the German government says that it Red Media operates under the Turkish AFA Medya umbrella that has close ties to RT and Russian funding. I think the obvious way to see which side deserves more grains of salt is to see if any other journalistic outlets have been sanctioned that report in similar ways. It seems like Germany has only sanctioned this specific media company that has obvious ties to Russia, not every outlet that has done Palestine-sympathetic or Israel-skeptical reporting.
  - frm88 10mo ago
    To be fair Red Media's ties to Russian Financing remains unproven and then there is this other fact: Anthony Blinken, former U.S. Secretary of State alleged the Russian connection and had their social media accounts on Google/Meta deleted/banned and Germany usually follows the U.S. https://perspektive-online.net/2025/05/nach-politischem-und-medialem-druck-red-media-stellt-betrieb-ein/ https://perspektive-online.net/2025/05/nach-politischem-und-... He did the same with African Stream under the same allegations. https://westafricaweekly.com/meta-suspends-african-stream-accounts-following-us-state-departments-accusation/ https://westafricaweekly.com/meta-suspends-african-stream-ac...