this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
31 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's really not. For example the UK has blocked rt.com for years now, and many other sites.
Except by your own argument it really is. The UK has blocked many sites for many reasons. However, none of those reasons are for crowd control. Your example is ironically proof of the statement. This is the first time a western nation has banned media for the explicit purpose of quelling a protest and suppressing speech. Your example is a government banning a site not to quell a protest or to suppress speech, but instead because of a governmental disagreement between two nations. Now which one you think is valid for suppressing speech is a totally different question, only that they are two separate and completely different reasons.
Claim 1
Claim 2
I'm talking about claim 1
Hope you get help with your reading comprehension problems.
RT.com is not blocked in the UK.
Yes it is.