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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
My original intent was to show up a paradoxon: A group of 5 European NGO activists has been put under a travel ban by the US yesterday. Two of them are german members of an organisation called "HateAid", which provides psychological and legal support for victims of hate speech. They are blamed for supporting Internet censorship (= terrorism in US perception) and are therefore denied entry to the US.
Or, in other words:
"We (US) censor them (EU) for supporting censorship."
BTW: I did some research about EU journalists or citizens losing bank access or being put under travel restrictions by administration. I couldn't find an example. Would be great if you could provide some background!
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Google and Meta are private companies who can ban anyone they want for any reason. What happened to African Stream seems entirely unrelated, at least in terms of the outcome.
It seems like the fact remains that Red Media is the only media outlet that has been hit by these direct government sanctions. If these sanctions were based on content and speech, there would be dozens of publications under these sanctions. There are even mainstream US publications that have published journalism critical of Israel’s role in the war.
Confirmed.
I find article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights particularly enlightening:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. [...]
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
To me it reads as "you have the right to free speech without interference by public authorities, except in all cases where public authorities want to interfere in whatever form and for whatever reason".
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.
Respectfully, you brought it up. Now when pressed on the issue YOU brought up you pivot to saying "I'm not here for that" and "I'm just stating facts."
You were clearly trying to make an argument to say that the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech. So back up your argument!
In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with.
Not at all, I guess the way I've phrased it made you misunderstand it but when I wrote "It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited.", I don't see how you can interpret this as "the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech".
You're making a shortcut, maybe based on the fact that usually some people use this arguments to complain about EU.
> In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with.
No, you're wrong from the beginning.
I think it's an excellent thing that there are restrictions on public freedom of speech and what I wrote is merely a stating of facts.
You find my arguments weak because they only exist in your imagination.
You’re right, I read it more as an argument against that system. In retrospect as I re-read you indeed never made that argument, even if the same facts support those who do.
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.
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.
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.
