The European Court of Justice said people running free, donation-funded websites can qualify as “operators” under the EU’s Russia sanctions, even if they are not traditional broadcasters.
With its judgement, the EU Court of Justice ruled that the bloc’s RT (formerly Russia Today) is banned also from non-commercial operators, closing a potential loophole and increasing the effectiveness of EU sanctions.
Here is the judgement by the Court (pdf)
…
Sharing videos from Russia’s state TV can land even a donation-funded blogger under EU sanctions, Europe’s top court ruled Thursday.
The European Court of Justice said a German court may treat three people accused of reposting videos from Russia Today Germany on the website Traugott Ickeroth as “operators” under the EU’s Russia sanctions rules, even though the website is freely accessible and not run by a traditional broadcaster.
German prosecutors accuse the trio — known only as R, N and K — of posting Russia Today Germany videos four times in 2023 through the website’s “Live-Ticker” blog. Under German law, violating the EU broadcasting ban can carry prison terms of three months to five years. Court records say R and N received more than 60,000 euros (roughly $68,400) in donations between April 2022 and August 2023.
The EU suspended broadcasts by Russia Today and Sputnik days after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, saying the Kremlin-controlled outlets were central to a disinformation campaign supporting the war. Since then, the bloc has expanded sanctions to thousands of Russian officials, oligarchs, banks, companies and other targets, making them one of its main tools for squeezing Moscow.
…
The judges said the law does not limit the ban to commercial broadcasters. Instead, an “operator” simply means the person responsible for making prohibited content available to the public. “Applied to the field of communication and the broadcasting of media and digital content, that term refers to any natural or legal person directly or indirectly responsible for making available or transmitting that content to the public.”
…
Jed Odermatt, a reader in international law at The City Law School, City St George’s, University of London, said: “By finding that profit motives are irrelevant to determining who is an ‘operator,’ the court confirms that these sanctions also apply to individuals running websites that disseminate prohibited content, closing what would otherwise have been an exploitable loophole.”
Luigi Lonardo, associate professor of European law at the Luxembourg Centre for European Law at the University of Luxembourg and adjunct faculty at Sciences Po’s Paris School of International Affairs, said the judgment shows why the court was willing to read the sanctions broadly. “This judgment is about the reach of EU censorship,” he said. “It is good news for the effectiveness of EU sanctions.”
…
With the EU law question now settled, the case returns to the Saarbrücken Regional Court, where judges will decide whether the three defendants committed a crime under Germany’s sanctions law.
…
In a related report from end of June, France uncovered a network of fake news sites managed by Chinese state media
… Viginum, France’s national agency for countering foreign digital interference, [at the Chinese propaganda network’s] centre is not loud propaganda, but an entire network of news portals that look like ordinary media outlets and focus mainly on how successful, innovative and essential to the world China supposedly is.
According to Viginum, the network consisted of 13 websites operated by China’s state broadcaster CGTN, or China Global Television Network. The portals published articles in English, French, Spanish and Vietnamese, presenting themselves as independent media outlets. In reality, they were part of a coordinated influence operation, which French authorities named Fawn Mianju.
This is not a story about isolated fake news. It is a story about how propaganda is increasingly being made to look like real journalism.
While Russian propaganda is often dominated by conflict, threat perception and confrontation, China’s goal is to build a positive image of itself. Freedom House describes this as a long-term strategy aimed at “telling China’s story well”. At its core is the image of China as a successful, trustworthy and indispensable partner.
Although the investigators conclude that Beijing’s malign activities weren’t successful in that case, the report shows how China’s state media tries is using AI trying to control the narrative by literally faking news sites that look like independent media.
There is no need for loud voices, militant slogans or obvious fake news. A website that resembles an ordinary news portal is enough. An article about China’s green transition or technological success is enough. And so is artificial intelligence that can adapt the same message for dozens of different target audiences within minutes.
The question is no longer only whether a news story is true or false. The question is who is telling stories about the world, what kinds of stories are being told, and whether the reader even notices that the “news” in front of them was not produced in an independent newsroom, but far away in Beijing …
The entire report makes a very informative read.
As long as we can keep on buying Russian oil, this is all okay. Right? Right???
The EU suspended broadcasts by Russia Today and Sputnik days after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, saying the Kremlin-controlled outlets were central to a disinformation campaign supporting the war.
We are not officially at war with Russia. This means that the EU can sanction any operator who posts something they call disinforation. What am I missing? What is the safety mechanism that prevents abuse?
Before anyone says this means it’s illegal to retweet Russian propaganda, that’s not what’s happened. You can share as much propaganda as you want, as long as you don’t receive money for sharing things online.
That’s not my understanding. The ruling finds that
… profit motives are irrelevant to determining who is an ‘operator,’ the court confirms that these sanctions also apply to individuals running websites that disseminate prohibited content …
and
… refers to any natural or legal person directly or indirectly responsible for making available or transmitting that content to the public.
I am not a legal expert, so please correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that if you are a private individual posting something on your private social media account, the ruling does not apply to you.
However, if you run a platform to disseminate content - such as a blog on a website, a small non-profit radio station, or the like - then the law does apply.
[Edit typo.]
Also not a legal expert, but
any natural or legal person directly or indirectly responsible for making available or transmitting that content to the public
would seem to catch personal social media posts as well. Otherwise, there’s still an exploitable loophole.
Aren’t EU sanctions economic? In that case, limiting RT seems reasonable. This ruling, though, seems aimed at enforcing a ban on discussing certain ideas. It’s censorship. Perhaps it’s justified, although censorship has never really worked; it’s only driven speakers underground and into dark corners where authorities can’t monitor them so easily.
It’d be censorship if you can’t publish the same ‘truth’ as RT, or can’t use RT as a source for your opinion piece. I guess if you aren’t allowed to give RT money, the argument could be made that by giving them publicity you are (indirectly) funding them.
the argument could be made that by giving them publicity you are (indirectly) funding them.
I don’t think money or funding has anything to do with this (and the money comes from the Russian state - or the Russian tax payer - anyway).
Furthermore, according to the court ruling, the content from the sanctioned platforms is prohibited
including in the context of a non-remunerated activity or in the operation of a website financed by voluntary contributions from third parties.
As the ruling says,
only that interpretation makes it possible … to prevent the broadcasting of the propaganda put in place by the Russian Federation and, consequently, to protect public order and security in the European Union.
Emphasis mine.
This isn’t about funding or anything related to money.
(and the money comes from the Russian state - or the Russian tax payer - anyway).
RT’s money does, but the article isn’t about whether they should be sanctioned but three donation-based bloggers.
But what you quote and emphasize later does seem to be more about banning the content and does give censorship vibes.
But it still is in relation to sanctions, because afaik the EU can’t prosecute individuals. If they would define it a crime to say certain things that would be actual censorship.
This is a ruling about content according to the quoted passage. That’s censorship of ideas by definition
Aren’t EU sanctions economic?
No, not necessarily (in that case, it;s not).
This ruling, though, seems aimed at enforcing a ban on discussing certain ideas.
What does that mean? Which certain ideas?
Any ideas that the EU doesn’t want discussed. Support for Russia or criticism of Ukraine, for example.
NOTE that I do not support Russia or think Ukraine is wrong in the current environment. And I understand that any government wants to prevent opposing propaganda from spreading within its borders.
These platforms aim to undermine democracy by sowing division, inciting hatred, intentionally spreading fake news. This is why these platforms are banned, maybe comparable with laws on hate speech, Nazi propaganda or Holocaust denial in Germany or similar laws in other Western countries. But this is not censorship.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of “censorship”. You literally just described it