David Kaye: two years ago, the EU banned RT/Sputnik, Russian state media. yesterday josef borrell said it was because they "are instrumental in supporting the war of aggression against Ukraine". that's an empirical claim. so, what effect has the ban had actually? is euro information space 'better' b/c of it?

two years ago, the EU banned RT/Sputnik, Russian state media. yesterday josef borrell said it was because they "are instrumental in supporting the war of aggression against Ukraine". that's an empirical claim. so, what effect has the ban had actually? is euro information space 'better' b/c of it?

Hard to prove it is or is not.

absolutely, i agree. but for a policy as draconian as the ban, there should be some kind of lessons-learned. you could just ask, now, how have russian propagandists circumvented the ban? are they reaching audiences? etc.

Sure. I asked EEAS when they agreed upon the ban about audience they had. In most EU countries, it was close to immeasurable.

Interesting - EEAS is not exactly the most declarative of agencies, but I would have never thought they’d consider it immeasurable. But it’s also specific to RT that they chose which countries to be more operative in and on - the UK being a prime target, for instance. France, less.

right, and this goes also to the scope of a continent-wide ban. maybe justifiable, and the ECJ has said ok in part, but there are a lot of questions here that have not been addressed.

They didn't, but they provided somenumbers after I insisted (rudely).

So 'immeasurable' is my wording, not theirs. But it's been their numbers.

You have to insist rudely with EEAS! :) if you have any publication on the subject you’d be willing to share i would be interested

“RT and Sputnik are instrumental to the invasion of Ukraine” is supportable by evidence. They are state owned and operated, with the official mandate to support the invasion and promote Russia’s claims. Your second question, whether banning them is effective, is asking to prove a negative.

Normatively I don’t see a problem with restricting foreign state media—there is no right to flood another country’s citizens with unrestricted propaganda. Notice how Russia destroying independent media limits their options, and non-state Russian journalism is relatively unrestricted in the EU.

i was about to respond that i agree on the empirical part (that RT/Sputnik are propaganda outlets of the state). but whether or not you see a problem, the ban remains a restriction on the right of audiences to access information, and it needs to be continually justified acc to human rights law.

Also agreed with this. Borrell’s statement is information, not evidence. If the ban is regularly reviewed, I would argue compliance is met. If the ban is simply left to whomever is in charge of political affairs at any time, it’s political, not legal.

I think that claim is iffy. Does human rights law affirmatively protect state propaganda?

HR law guarantees everyone's right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. The state can impose restrictions so long as it meets tests of legality, necessity & legitimacy. The state also has an obligation to prohibit "propaganda for war" but...1/2

there's very little if any law on that prohibition, or whether its scope applies in this kind of situation. maybe, but that three-part test still applies. 2/2

I would agree. The decision to do so wasn’t taken lightly, but RT is a declared, open, and active tool of state propaganda that can’t be relegated to the vague “soft power” declaration. BBC is declared soft power, in Parliament. RT? Tool of war.

Post