|
V. Illych L. posted:legal recourse is not the same thing as having something administered by the legal system in the first place. that czech law banning pro-russian sentiment is still problematic in free speech terms even if it would hopefully be overturned upon appeal to the ECHR: such things take years and a great deal of money to fight and constitute meaningful censorship *even if they're eventually overturned*. i honestly haven't been able to find the specific legal justification for banning the russian outlets - the only justification i can find is borrel saying: An EP complaining about the executive is proof that the system works and that there is, in fact, a deep commitment to free speech in our polity. Otherwise, you would not have tensions between the executive and the legislative, one would parrot the other, as is the case in e.g. Russia and China. And again: there are different courses of action. Some involve the judiciary branch ex ante, some involve it ex post. As long as there is a rational basis for the executive to act based on the powers that have been delegated, and said action is subject to judicial review and subsequent legislative action where necessary, the system works. Note, all of the above are precisely why Ursula shutting down the information outlet of a hostile foreign power is not “the same” as us complaining about Russia or China when they shut down information sources: when they do it, there are no checks and balances, and no recourse, on top of the “rational basis” being subjectively and objectively more questionable. A “deep commitment to free speech” does not mean every member of every branch of government constantly supports maximum free speech for everyone, regardless of impact on the polity. It means free speech is anchored and upheld as a core right, with the legislative codifying limits where deemed appropriate, the executive acting where required, and the judiciary reviewing conflicts where necessary.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
i would argue that a system in which the executive can unilaterally shut down news outlets without any kind of state of exception is, in itself, not a system which has a deep commitment to free speech. the european parliament being sidelined (again) does not indicate any systemic strength on the issue and, in fact, points towards another deeply troubling factor of empowering the european executive with this kind of thing, namely that executive's very suspect democratic mandate, but that's another issue. it is bonkers to assert that parliamentarians saying they've been totally sidelined on what is an important point of principle shows the depth of the institution's commitment to that principle. russia is not at war with the EU. russia has no formal status as a hostile state to the EU. formally, EU-russian relations are normal. this is an important point; had there been open war between the institutions, this sort of thing would be unremarkable but there isn't. a deep and institutional commitment to the freedom of speech means that freedom of speech is considered very important and that things which challenge obvious intuitions about freedom of speech such as shutting down news agencies are not taken lightly or without discussion. there's no great indication that shutting RT and sputnik are anything but statements of intent; they decided to do it first and then tried to find some kind of justification to do it. this is the same way russia decided to go for e.g. deutsche welle. unless you would argue that the immediate danger posed by RT and sputnik was so great that the executive had to take immediate action, of course, but that attitude is simply ridiculous. the justifications offered - that "manipulation and disinformation" is a "threat to the Union's public order and security" - can in principle be used to silence any number of press agencies. RT's ability to provoke serious unrest anywhere in europe was nil; all it would be able to do would be to supply an opposing perspective on the present war, with both untrue as well as true material, which it's hard to see anyone in europe starting a riot about even if they chose to believe it over the unanimous mainstream and majority of alternative media available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
I was making jokes about this earlier, but I'm not sure anyone's established that we're talking about the same kind of free speech. Is it the kind that Americans like to talk about? Is it the kind we commonly have here in Europe (although it's not universal)? Some other kind? To me, it seems like the banning of RT and Sputnik are meant as temporary measures, not intended to be ratified and codified into law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
when i think "commitment to free speech" i mean a fundamental liberal commitment to the idea that society's attitudes are formed through the meeting of minds and ideas in rational discussion, and that people are mostly able to figure out what's real and what's not. to this end, you need to tolerate a wide range of opinions and expressions, which will not weaken but strengthen society. then one gets into stuff like bad-faith actors etc., which tends to be limited to words-as-actions (so especially egregious insults, threats etc) or certain extremist ideologies ("you cannot argue with a fascist, and in fact since fascists thrive on discursive collapse they will actively degrade the possibility of a rational conversation and must be banned"). the latter usually takes the form of e.g. banning certain symbols or signature positions, such as holocaust denial. crucially, this commitment means that you need to have consistent, predictable and meta-debatable (i.e. you can discuss the merit of the ban on X type of statement) rules for what goes and what doesn't go in a free discussion. the reason you need this is because if regulation of the discourse is left to an executive - even if that executive is subject to appeal - it's inevitably going to be used in the interest of whoever controls the executive. this creates a chilling effect as people try to adapt their statements and positions to anticipate the censorship of the executive. in this specific case, most outlets probably don't have much reason to fear since they're generally not foreign propaganda services, but it's not impossible to imagine this turning into bans on e.g. syrian news channels or whatever. crucially, the official justification for the bans - security and public order - aren't very convincing. the decision to ban these agencies may still, in sum, be the morally right decision if it's meant as a part of a viable strategy for a more equitable and lasting peace in ukraine. i have no idea how that would work, but this is a genuine possibility. it is not, however, the decision of an institution which is deeply committed to the value of free speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:I was making jokes about this earlier, but I'm not sure anyone's established that we're talking about the same kind of free speech. They arent banned, Direct TV just dropped them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Despera posted:They arent banned, Direct TV just dropped them. ???? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-bans-rt-sputnik-banned-over-ukraine-disinformation-2022-03-02/ something that looks like a ban to me posted:The sanction means EU operators will be prohibited from broadcasting, facilitating or otherwise contributing to the dissemination of any RT and Sputnik content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Oh was talking about America
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Allowing corporate, state-associated (from a foreign state, no less) media to broadcast in your territory =/= free speech. People can still express the opinions put forth by outlets like RT and Sputnik. They're just not being given a megaphone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i would argue that a system in which the executive can unilaterally shut down news outlets without any kind of state of exception is, in itself, not a system which has a deep commitment to free speech. The executive executes and acts ahead of the legislature. The legislature considers, delegates and legislates. That’s how the system is intended to work. That has nothing to do with “unilateral executive action” because executive action is intended to be unilateral at the moment in time. It also has nothing to do with “sidelining parliament”, because parliament is not supposed to act at the speed of the executive. But ultimately, you always come back to “But Ursula was mean to RT, so the entire EU is hypocritical and not committed to free speech” without regard for any one the above workings. If that’s your worldview, you’re entitled to your opinion. V. Illych L. posted:russia is not at war with the EU. russia has no formal status as a hostile state to the EU. formally, EU-russian relations are normal. this is an important point; had there been open war between the institutions, this sort of thing would be unremarkable but [i]there isn't[i] The EU has sanctioned the Russian economy to within an inch of it’s life, and caused irreparable damage. France’s politicians speak of “total economic war”. The EU airspace is closed to Russian planes. Companies in certain sectors are forbidden from doing business with Russian companies. NATO forces are being mobilized and positioned along the border to Russia / Belarus / Ukraine. Russian central bank assets have effectively been seized. Which of the above constitutes “normal” relations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Yeah Russia is not having 'Normal Relations' with the EU right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Geez, don't you know anything? There's always a new normal!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
there has been no declaration of war, enmity, blockade etc. there has been no internal declaration of emergency or martial law. this is all, formally, operating within the ordinary workings of the EU. in a broader sense, the executive has just seized an enormous amount of power, *including* the power to shut down undesirable news outlets, because what they're effectively saying is that this is the normal amount of leeway granted to the executive. because, again, there has been no formal suspension of normal rules. there's been lots of stuff on the ground and a great many treaties, deals etc torched, but nothing constitutional has had to be activated to allow this, meaning that the executive considers all of this within its normal reportoire of powers. it's like the US unitary executive theory, except that the EU executive hasn't ever really behaved this way before. that the EU executive considers shutting down press institutions a thing it can just do with what must be said to be very flimsy justifications, even if it is appealable (and we do not know if this is effectively appealable! i'm granting this because i think i can and leave my point intact) that's not the actions of an organisation especially devoted to free speech, at least by the standards we apply to other countries. for why the legislative is important in this kind of issue, i refer to my previous post. it's very important for free speech to serve the function it's supposed to serve that any regulations upon it are predictable e. like, the EU hasn't even expelled russian diplomats. there's a state of tension, but the formal constitutional response from the EU has actually been pretty limited, at least in part because the executive seems to have decided that it can do things V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there has been no declaration of war, enmity, blockade etc. there has been no internal declaration of emergency or martial law. this is all, formally, operating within the ordinary workings of the EU. in a broader sense, the executive has just seized an enormous amount of power, *including* the power to shut down undesirable news outlets, because what they're effectively saying is that this is the normal amount of leeway granted to the executive. because, again, there has been no formal suspension of normal rules. there's been lots of stuff on the ground and a great many treaties, deals etc torched, but nothing constitutional has had to be activated to allow this, meaning that the executive considers all of this within its normal reportoire of powers. it's like the US unitary executive theory, except that the EU executive hasn't ever really behaved this way before. that the EU executive considers shutting down press institutions a thing it can just do with what must be said to be very flimsy justifications, even if it is appealable (and we do not know if this is effectively appealable! i'm granting this because i think i can and leave my point intact) that's not the actions of an organisation especially devoted to free speech, at least by the standards we apply to other countries. The EU has entirely largely blockaded Russia economically outside of energy markets. I wholly disagree with what you are saying. And RT has been a State Media org for ages, its not some free speech source, its Fox News with all the baggage and more. This is not some free speech issue, and you can readily find RT articles and videos online with ease. They are not silenced. They just are not getting the free spread they used to have. Its a State controlled news network. And Russia is actively shutting down anyone or any media group saying anything untoward their operation in Ukraine. RT doesn't need you defending it, and neither does the Russian State Department.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The EU has entirely largely blockaded Russia economically outside of energy markets. I wholly disagree with what you are saying. you're missing the point. i am not defending RT or russian foreign department. if you're going to step into post number fifty or whatever this is of this argument please read at least some of the preceding ones as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you're missing the point. i am not defending RT or russian foreign department. if you're going to step into post number fifty or whatever this is of this argument please read at least some of the preceding ones as well. You are acting like blocking a State Sponsored media group is some Free Speech issue. Its far from being a free speech issue. You are arguing its some executive consolidation of power and that worse things are coming because of it. That makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are acting like blocking a State Sponsored media group is some Free Speech issue. Its far from being a free speech issue. You are arguing its some executive consolidation of power and that worse things are coming because of it. so are you saying that criticising russia on free speech grounds for banning deutsche welle was also wrong or what
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
also arguments about executive consolidation are secondary; my main point is that the EU has done things recently which gel poorly with them having a, quote, "deep, institutional" commitment to free speech. i have made sub-points to support that, but that very specific statement is what i'm arguing about in the EU thread at the moment. that the news sources in question are russian is basically coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
You don’t consider China banning the BBC a free speech issue? Asking CommieGIR. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Mar 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:If China banned the BBC you would not consider it a free speech issue? Get loving real. China has already banned the BBC. But there is no reason to compare a legitimate news agency with a meaningless conspiracy propaganda organ like RT. Governments should ban OAN while they're at it - fake tabloid junk that is constantly filled with lies is not good for people and does not constitute protected speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Kaal posted:China has already banned the BBC. But there is no reason to compare a legitimate news agency with a meaningless conspiracy propaganda organ like RT. Governments should ban OAN while they're at it - fake tabloid junk that is constantly filled with lies is not good for people and does not constitute protected speech. i think this is a legitimate position, but it's also not one especially committed to the principle of free speech
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i think this is a legitimate position, but it's also not one especially committed to the principle of free speech Free speech and freedom of the press has a variety of important aspects, including critical elements like actual truth, the time, place, and manner of speech, defamation, commercial and political aspects etc. Ensuring that these elements are considered and upheld is key to maintaining the principle of free speech. And under this light, it is clear to me that a loudspeaker of Russian propaganda that has thoroughly demonstrated its utter disregard for truth does not come close to passing that bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You don’t consider China banning the BBC a free speech issue? I do, but BBC is largely not in the same level as RT. BBC is also ENTIRELY banned in China, versus RT which remains reachable online. In China that is not possible thanks to the censorship via the Great Firewall. V. Illych L. posted:i think this is a legitimate position, but it's also not one especially committed to the principle of free speech This feels like a bit: Free Speech is not an all or nothing affair: Again, nobody is required, even in Free Speech, to carry your message. No one. This was an argument point that the Alt-Right loves portraying, that Free Speech means All Speech much be carried. RT remains reachable, the EU television broadcasters isn't required to carry them, and yet despite banning them from television, they remain alive and well on the internet. So is their message not getting out because of that? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Mar 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
E: post was made in massive frustration. Should probably go to bed instead of posting
TearsOfPirates fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Free speech and freedom of the press has a variety of important aspects, including critical elements like actual truth, the time, place, and manner of speech, defamation, commercial and political aspects etc. Ensuring that these elements are considered and upheld is key to maintaining the principle of free speech. And under this light, it is clear to me that a loudspeaker of Russian propaganda that has thoroughly demonstrated its utter disregard for truth does not come close to passing that bar. there's no predictable, requirement for a broadcaster in the EU which RT and sputnik are alleged to have broken to my knowledge. they're alleged to be a security and public order risk. that seems to be giving them a bit too much credit, in my opinion, and is also a not-especially principled reason to shut down a press outlet. so what's the actual reason for shutting them? well they're propaganda for a state we don't like at the moment (for the record: for entirely valid reasons). this is a geopolitical concern, which in this case seems to have overridden the institutional commitment to freedom of speech, indicating that said commitment is not especially deep. it may be a morally correct thing to do - again, for the n-th time, i am not a free speech absolutist - but the stated reasons and the manner in which it's done are not, in my opinion, consistent with a principled, deep commitment to free speech. TearsOfPirates posted:I tried reading them and all of them felt like "I have no idea about the last 10 years of Russia's slow but assured political funding of the far-right because I don't give a flying gently caress about every other EU country that I'm not from because they don't matter". what does this even mean and how does it relate to whether the EU has deep institutional commitments to free speech? i sincerely don't understand what i've posted that this is in relation to. CommieGIR posted:I do, but BBC is largely not in the same level as RT. BBC is also ENTIRELY banned in China, versus RT which remains reachable online. In China that is not possible thanks to the censorship via the Great Firewall. yes they're literally being banned by the EU in so many words. even if that ban is leaky, it's still a ban. this is not some provider refusing to host a channel where one has a private property argument, it's government action directly trying to suppress a media outlet.your other point is not coherent - you can easily argue that one can technically bypass the great firewall and so the BBC ban isn't complete i think, perhaps, that i have more faith in people's ability to parse propaganda than some of you do. maybe it is i who is the liberal here
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:so are you saying that criticising russia on free speech grounds for banning deutsche welle was also wrong or what Was there recourse in Russia to the ban? As to your other points, I don’t really see a basis of discussion if you’re stating with a straight face that EU-Russia relations are “normal” because there is no formal declaration of war; just destruction inflicted on Russia on par with a bombing campaign, but apparently, that’s “normal” as long as some formalities aren’t met. In fact, it feel like all your positions are based on formalities. The executive bans a press outlet, without formal approval by the judiciary? That’s a fundamental attack on the institution of free speech and demonstrates that the entire EU is a farce - regardless of whether is normal executorial practice. Presumably, if the judiciary had approved it without an explicit law, it would be proof of disregard of free speech as well. And if the legislative passed an explicit law, I suppose the EU would be caught red-handed in making GBS threads all over free speech. That’s a position you can take, but it’s also fundamentalist and not debatable. Meanwhile in reality, if you don’t like the RT ban, and assuming you’re an EU citizen: sue. The fact that you can, and that there will be no state repercussions, are all that’s needed to demonstrate the difference between the commitment to free speech in the EU vs Russia or China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there's no predictable, requirement for a broadcaster in the EU which RT and sputnik are alleged to have broken to my knowledge. they're alleged to be a security and public order risk. that seems to be giving them a bit too much credit, in my opinion, and is also a not-especially principled reason to shut down a press outlet. so what's the actual reason for shutting them? well they're propaganda for a state we don't like at the moment (for the record: for entirely valid reasons). this is a geopolitical concern, which in this case seems to have overridden the institutional commitment to freedom of speech, indicating that said commitment is not especially deep. it may be a morally correct thing to do - again, for the n-th time, i am not a free speech absolutist - but the stated reasons and the manner in which it's done are not, in my opinion, consistent with a principled, deep commitment to free speech. If you're concerned about the technocratic aspects of this, the specific reasoning for the EU ban of RT, Sputnik, and other Russian state media is as part of the overall sanctions on Russian economic interests. That's the requirement - not sending money back to Putin. They did that specifically to avoid needing to debate this issue, because the extent of the sanctions obviated any need. Beyond that, if we're talking about the principles of free speech then we'd get into the importance of defending actual free speech from the malign impact of misinformation and propaganda. The US, for example, considers RT and Sputnik to be forms of "public diplomacy", akin to Voice of America (though VOA is a much better news source than that junk) and certainly not subject to any press protections. I understand that some folks may disagree with that, and indeed there's a long history in western civilization arguing back and forth about how far society should be able to legally protect itself from liars and frauds (the libertarians over at the ACLU have filled volumes with their support of a universal right to publish), but I don't think that the existence of that argument indicates a lack of commitment to free speech. Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
yes i'm arguing formally. that is in part because this is D&D and i'm arguing against the current extremely pro-EU vogue, which will see you shouted down if you don't stay very close to formal principles. i will admit that i appreciate your posts, since you tend to try and engage with what my actual point is instead of making up something and charging at thatmorothar posted:Was there recourse in Russia to the ban? "better than russia" does not a deep, institutional commitment to free speech make. russia is a country without free speech in any reasonable interpretation, and so is china. poland is more of a border case: their actions in recent years do not seem to show much commitment to freedom of speech, but i wouldn't say that it's absent there either. if the legislature passed a law saying something like "if you get caught by this media review body doing egregious falsehoods X times you fall under review and subject to various penalties", that might be a reasonable way of shutting down media outlets without abandoning a deep, institutional commitment to free speech - you'd have to see how it played out in practice, i suppose, it certainly couldn't have the executive sitting in both the review and penalty boards. i have given other examples of free speech restrictions that i think are compatible with such a commitment - holocaust denial in germany being the standout example. everybody in germany knows you're not allowed to do that, and why, and are allowed to protest and potentially change it. it is not enforced by the chancellorly deciding that someone's a holocaust denial and that their blog must be taken down. i don't think that this is an especially onerous test. legal recourse is a nice thing, but it is not an effective counteraction for censorship, because it's an onerous cost and a long process. many media outlets (indeed, i would think most without actual government backing) would keel over by the time the appeal got processed. similar to how that czech law making open pro-russian sentiment illegal seems to be problematic (though here it's on substantial rather than formal terms and so qualitatively different from my RT/sputnik point; i do not think you can reasonably ban that kind of utterance and be within the bounds of free speech - though this, again, a different argument) even though it's appealable to the ECHR and almost certainly would be overturned; nobody wants to spend years fighting a case like that. if you assume that i'm arguing in bad faith, then i don't see why you're bothering to reply. it'd be easier to just state that i'm in bad faith and then let the discussion die. i can assure you that i'm not in bad faith fwiw
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
I agree with Ilyich though. Banning a tv channel overnight by decree is making quite some people uneasy, no matter how rotten the channel in specific. (I would like to award a gold medal in mental gymnastics to the guy who argued that the EP guy complaining about no consultation as being proof of the democratic system working). The lack of process sets a dangerous precedent. This is the kind of thing that we criticise other govts about, constantly. Was it justified of Venezuela to not provide an emission license to specific channels which were particularly hostile to the government? I find it a bit depressing that people falling into the trap of accepting anti-democratic measures as long as it affects some bad guys. (In the 2000's the justification was terrorism, now we have the Russians) AndreTheGiantBoned fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Mar 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you're concerned about the technocratic aspects of this, the specific reasoning for the EU ban of RT, Sputnik, and other Russian state media is as part of the overall sanctions on Russian economic interests. That's the requirement - not sending money back to Putin. They did that specifically to avoid needing to debate this issue, because the extent of the sanctions obviated any need. Beyond that, if we're talking about the principles of free speech then we'd get into the importance of defending actual free speech from the malign impact of misinformation and propaganda. The US, for example, considers RT and Sputnik to be forms of "public diplomacy", akin to Voice of America (though VOA is a much better news source than that junk) and certainly not subject to any press protections. I understand that some folks may disagree with that, and indeed there's a long history in western civilization arguing back and forth about how far society should be able to legally protect itself from liars and frauds (the libertarians over at the ACLU have filled volumes with their support of a universal right to publish), but I don't think that the existence of that argument indicates a lack of commitment to free speech. can you source this reasoning? i've searched and found comments about security risks, fake news and public disorder and very little about commercial ties. e.g.: https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/brussels-looks-to-ban-rt-sputnik-from-eu-over-ukraine-disinformation-concerns/ quote:“We will ban the Kremlin’s media machine in the EU,” said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, adding that Brussels was “developing tools to ban [the] toxic and harmful disinformation in Europe” of the two Moscow-funded channels and their subsidiaries. wherein they cite the content of the media organisations as objectionable, not the commercial ties, and acknowledge the conflict between this action and press freedom. there are many of these stories in various online media. if this was all about the commercial mechanisms you'd think the EU executive would front with that in their communication on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
AndreTheGiantBoned posted:I agree with Ilyich though. Again, RT is more than available online. And the idea that RT is some speech that needs to be protected is beyond laughable: Its a state propaganda network with one goal: Sway people to supporting Putin's views about the world. And given that Putin used RT to push the very sort of ideas about censorship and parties who would fully endorse the censorship Putin himself is taking right now, its beyond the pale that anybody is pretending that there was any value in the speech and information being presented by RT. Putin's RT regularly goes to bat for groups that very much wish to enact censorship in the EU, and not of state propaganda but of LGBT, Leftist, and other Progressives. Its a group being controlled by an Right Wing kleptocrat Christian oligarchy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yes i'm arguing formally. that is in part because this is D&D and i'm arguing against the current extremely pro-EU vogue, which will see you shouted down if you don't stay very close to formal principles. i will admit that i appreciate your posts, since you tend to try and engage with what my actual point is instead of making up something and charging at that I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith per se; I think you’re arguing in a manner that’s exceedingly formalistic - and yes, ultimately not terribly fecund in terms of debate. You’re also oversimplifying or mischaracterizing to some degree. Example: injunctions are neither costly to get, nor do they take a long time. They are granted based on ‘likelihood of success’ if the alternative outcome is “irreparable damage”, for the formal case to play out subsequently. In other words, if RT were to sue for injunctive relief today, they should have relief within days - or not, if they are unlikely to succeed. Hence my insistence that recourse does, in fact, constitute a protection of free speech. Especially in a non-adversarial system like the one in the EU, where the party that’s losing has to bear all the costs of the proceedings. And hence also my disagreement that only ex ante judicial involvement constitutes “proper” due process. It’s a reductive position that’s simply not reflective of reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:can you source this reasoning? i've searched and found comments about security risks, fake news and public disorder and very little about commercial ties. e.g.: They've been talking about it within the context of the overall sanctions on Russia, rather than trying to defend the decision independently. That might change over time, to be sure. quote:The EU’s ban on Kremlin-backed media outlets, Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik (plus any subsidiaries), is expected to cover online platforms and apps as well as traditional broadcast channels, TechCrunch has confirmed. https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/28/eu-rt-ban-extends-online/ https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/27/eu-ban-russian-state-backed-channels-rt-sputnik
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:35
|
|
|
finally found a decent overview of what is actually going on here. i do not know the site but i skimmed the piece and it seems coherent. https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/02/eu-rt-sputnik-ban-live/ quote:While individual journalists at the two outlets are not being sanctioned at this time (the editor in chief of RT had already been sanctioned), the legal instrument includes an anti-circumvention clause — which could end up targeting individuals, i.e., if they are deemed to be trying to circumvent the restrictions on the channels. so it's a pretty wide-ranging ban which is attempting to block leaks while accepting that there's going to be some leakage anyway. probably enforcement of ISP's going to be lax in practice quote:In another supporting statement, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell, added: “Systematic information manipulation and disinformation by the Kremlin is applied as an operational tool in its assault on Ukraine. It is also a significant and direct threat to the Union’s public order and security. Today, we are taking an important step against Putin’s manipulation operation and turning off the tap for Russian state-controlled media in the EU. We have already earlier put sanctions on leadership of RT, including the editor-in-chief [Margarita] Simonyan, and it is only logical to also target the activities the organisations have been conducting within our Union.” it's content, not commercial ties or ownership structure which is the reason for the ban quote:The legal basis for the RT and Sputnik sanctions is a unanimous decision by the European Council, under common foreign and security policy rules (article 29), along with article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides for restrictive measures, per the Commission. the legal basis is the Council interpreting this as a security concern, again basically geopolitical reasons for doing it. they acknowledge that it's not entirely unproblematic in terms of freedom of press, but they expect that the reasoning - being targetted - will hold up to legal challenge. there's also stuff in that article about the broader strategy of the EU re: information et cetera. the European Council is basically the commission checked by a representative of each government. it's a pretty opaque outfit, but it makes sense that they would be the ones to provide the basis for the decision since the parliament hasn't been involved. what this means is basically that the commission asked for it and no country vetoed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
I can't really go too much further into a deep dive right now, but thanks for sharing the sources you've been finding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
morothar posted:I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith per se; I think you’re arguing in a manner that’s exceedingly formalistic - and yes, ultimately not terribly fecund in terms of debate. well i guess we'll see when/if RT and sputnik challenge it Kaal posted:They've been talking about it within the context of the overall sanctions on Russia, rather than trying to defend the decision independently. That might change over time, to be sure. oh! you're talking about the instrument used to enforce the ban, not the political justification of it. sorry, i misinterpreted your point. i don't see a difference in principle depending on the mechanisms of enforcing a ban like this, though it is really past my bedtime
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Just found the last few pages of this thread unread and already two weeks later it’s like a window into a completely different world. Crazy times 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
So Ireland has a rapidly growing economy and a GDP per capita of $111,360. More than twice the amount of the United States. Does this translate to a quality of life that is substantially higher than that of other Western nations like Australia, U.S., and the UK?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So Ireland has a rapidly growing economy and a GDP per capita of $111,360. More than twice the amount of the United States. Ireland is a tax shelter for a lot of major corporations which tends to really over-inflate their GDP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So Ireland has a rapidly growing economy and a GDP per capita of $111,360. More than twice the amount of the United States. The median salary in Ireland is €38,500 / $43k ish. The GDP per capita is completely distorted by tax dodging companies. Its still a wealthy Northern European country with a very high quality of life. But the level of income (and quality of life) are lower than in Scandinavia or the wealthiest parts of the US and UK like London or DC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Thanks for the responses. I was wondering if Ireland had surpassed the U.K. in quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 01:05
|
|