This seems like a nothing burger. The ban of RT is in place already, the new decision is not relating to whether it stays in place or not:
In the law, operators are forbidden from distributing content from a list of banned media, including RT. The question is not relating to the continuation of that ban, but on the word “operator” in particular; it essentially means that it’s an entity distributing the content from a commercial perspective.
The question is whether gifts & donations to a private (non-commercial) individual turn that private individual into a commercial distributor and thus an operator.
‘Must Article 2f(1) of [Regulation No 883/2014] be interpreted as meaning that operators, within the meaning of that provision, also include natural persons who, through a website operated by them, only generate income in the form of voluntary contributions from third parties (donations or gifts)?’
Cited in Judgement #16, page 6
And it follows in the conclusion:
[The law] must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who operates a website by broadcasting on it content originating from legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, and derives from the operation of that website only income from voluntary contributions from third parties, in the form of donations or gifts, comes within the concept of ‘operator’ within the meaning of that provision
This is the conclusion on the last page of the judgement (is it me or the wording is pretty bad around
The judgement also carefully qualifies why gifts & donations are qualified as income in #15
However, that court observes that the collection of private donations, which constitute gifts under civil law, is capable of being classified as a ‘professional activity’, where it is carried out to such an extent that the beneficiaries receive significant sums enabling them to finance, at least in part, their means of subsistence. In the present case, the appeal for donations appears to be designed to generate financial resources for the continued operation of the traugott-ickeroth website and therefore to constitute a sustainable source of income, which is characteristic of a professional activity
So essentially, the information itself can still be freely shared so long as it’s done without monetary support that can be considered as “income”; they’re not further banning the information itself, simply closing a “loophole”.
I don’t like the original law either (because the media list can be amended to practically include anything and anyone), but this is not changing much, and given the amount of the donations (60k in a year) it’s surprising that they thought that would not be considered commercial exploitation to begin with.
Honestly, if they had cut off donations early or capped them to their server costs, then the prosecution would have no recourse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
I’m glad I don’t live in the EU
The EU would not need to do this if they were winning. This is desperate.
Winning WHAT?
The war in Ukraine? Duh? If Russia was losing, the EU wouldn’t bother censoring RT. They’re just words, and words don’t matter when the actual material realities on the ground erase whatever gains they could possibly make with propaganda.
Fun fact, this is objectively harsher than the Great Firewall, which does not have any criminal codes against sharing outside information.
The EU is more pro-censorship than China.
First time?
bastion of free speech and democracy, everyone.
Are all Europeans as evil as their oligarchs that want to raze Russia since time immemorial?
Removed by mod
Silence, drone strike lover
Unironically,
Ye Power Trippin’ Bastards
this is the price for freedom of speech bro
Oh, this is on lemmy.ml. Should have noticed that first before I went into the comments.
Removed by mod
i’ve been saying it for years.
obviously, nobody likes a violent neighbor, and nobody likes russia invading ukraine. so much should be clear.
but, the fact that the EU just literally doesn’t allow russia to speak or to give any kind of explanatory statement, makes me thing that russia actually has good reason and EU does not want us to see that.
makes me thing that russia actually has good reason and EU does not want us to see that
Are you starting to notice the contradictions? Check this documentary out.
You say that Russia is not allowed to speak in the EU and state it as a fact. However I am living in the EU and still get to hear or read about e.g. what Lawrow has to say.
do you mean, what Tagesschau and other western newspapers report that lawrow says? because i’d rather hear it from themselves personally. otherwise it’s just a game of chinese whispers
Removed by mod
“Anyone who disagrees with me is an evil foreigner!”
