• BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    There is no such thing as unbiased. We are all biased by definition since we have our experiences and thoughts that shape us.

    RT is already banned in the whole Europe. This ruling is not about banning RT, it’s about negating truth as a valid defense against prosecution. I couldn’t care less about RT specifically. But replace RT with any other entity and then ask yourself if your position would be the same? It never ends with one entity. Once they have the power to use it, they will use it again.

    It’s another area where EU is erasing fundamental rights, just like they are trying to do with ID verification, chat control and the recent wave of expanded copyright enforcement where they are literally giving private entities access to ban anything they want.

    • Hemuphone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Usually one would expect news to at least attempt to report in an objective manner. Funny how the site they “stole” the court case link from reports on this much better, covering both sides of the argument.

      Absolutely this ruling was about upholding the ban on RT. The court ruled that if you take donations while sharing RT videos, the sanctions also apply to you, and you are criminally liable. It was not about sharing a random link on facebook.

      I also do not agree with the decision, but claiming that this ruling is about negating truth is nonsense.