RT is a propaganda department of Russian government. Most countries do regulate behavior of the agents of foreign governments on their territory.
It is up to a specific government whether they allow another government to come in and for example spread propaganda or mine coal or build railways. Usually there is some reciprocity expected. Russia blocked not only West government propaganda agencies, it is also blocked independent media. So, the West governments are more than expected to block Russian government propaganda operations, especially given that non government information flow from Russia isn't blocked (that would be the censorship similar to that Russia has been doing, and West hasn't done it yet).
> RT is a propaganda department of Russian government
So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them.
Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
>So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them.
do you really think that that BBC lying was a deliberate action of Great Britain government against your country? I think nobody thought that, so it wasn't banned.
In general you're mixing 2 different things - an operation of a foreign government on your territory and information content. Blocking the first is sovereign right while blocking the second is censorship and is a mark of dictatorship.
The RT operation in EU is blocked, while the content isn't - you wouldn't get punished for forwarding or retelling (on your own volition without any payment from Russian government for doing so) a content of RT propaganda contradicting official information of EU. In Russia BBC is blocked as an operation as well as its content - i.e. you'd get criminally punished for forwarding or retelling (again, even at your own will) a BBC content contradicting official [dis]information of the Russian government, i.e Russia does have censorship.
The BBC lying might as well be. Good luck keeping a job at the BBC if you are the kind of person that wouldn't have taken the US on their word in that situation.
Instead of keeping an editorial line on a list of subjects, organizations like the BBC simply maintain a culture, from the top down, where if you were to threaten propaganda by the government or it's allies that is too valuable, you will lose your job.
Are you sure BBC or CNN weren’t banned in Iraq? Because there is a quite a difference between the offensive side (US and UK in Iraq, Russia in Ukraine) and the defending side.
Also, RT block is very different from censorship in China: it’s aimed at the outlet itself, not at its users.
> So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them.
And that is relevant how? Here comes the whataboutism.
> Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
Russia uses misinformation as an attack, EU blocks it.
Sure. BBC World Service wiki page describes some of the history/scandals [1]. For example, there has always been a MI5 office inside BBC headquarters. More in depth investigative journalism has been done by Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, et al. [2], specifically this article is very damning and caused Twitter to implement a warning label about "potentially hacked materials" (implying they are true) [3]
Do you have any that isn't presented by people who actively spread Russian propaganda?.
Perhaps an article from a website that isn't actively known for misleading reporting and being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.
The wikipage on the grey zone is pretty damning. I mean using these people as a source for anything on the west that is critical would be a huge mistake.
> The website published pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the debunked claim that Ukrainian fighters were using civilians as human shields, and that the Mariupol theatre attack was staged by the Azov Regiment.[24] The Russian fake news website Peace Data republished articles by The Grayzone in order to build a reputation as a progressive and anti-West media source and to attract contributors.[38]
Sorry, can you address any of the claims made by the journalists? or only engage in smears?
Why do you think Twitter added a "hacked materials" warning to that article instead of simply removing it as "Russian misinformation", as they have repeatedly, and perhaps justifiably done for other tweets?
Wikipedia is totally unreliable for controversial topics that challenge the media establishment. Just look at their list of "reliable sources". It's a bad joke!
It is up to a specific government whether they allow another government to come in and for example spread propaganda or mine coal or build railways. Usually there is some reciprocity expected. Russia blocked not only West government propaganda agencies, it is also blocked independent media. So, the West governments are more than expected to block Russian government propaganda operations, especially given that non government information flow from Russia isn't blocked (that would be the censorship similar to that Russia has been doing, and West hasn't done it yet).