Numéro de la page (article_articleid) | 0 |
Espace de noms de la page (article_namespace) | 0 |
Titre de la page (sans l'espace de noms) (article_text) | Dutch Journalists Rights Group File Lawsuit Challenging EU Ban On... |
Titre complet de la page (article_prefixedtext) | Dutch Journalists Rights Group File Lawsuit Challenging EU Ban On... |
Ancien modèle de contenu (old_content_model) | |
Nouveau modèle de contenu (new_content_model) | wikitext |
Ancien texte de la page, avant la modification (old_wikitext) | |
Nouveau texte de la page, après la modification (new_wikitext) | <br>By Toby Sterling<br> <br>AMSTERDAM, May 25 (Reuters) - The main Dutch journalists' union on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging the European Union's ban on Russian state-backed media outlets as a violation of European citizens' own rights to freedom of information.<br> <br>The EU issued sweeping restrictions on the distribution of Russia Today and Sputnik in Europe on March 2 as part of sanctions against Moscow, arguing that they produced propaganda used to justify and support the invasion of Ukraine.<br> <br>The Dutch lawsuit, filed at the EU's Court of Justice, did not endorse the content produced by the Russian organizations or say that [https://www.brandsreviews.com/search?keyword=European%20broadcasters European broadcasters] should carry them.<br> <br>Rather, it said the ban was overly broad and that allowing politicians to enact censorship policies overnight is wrong in principle.<br> <br>"If you're talking about sanctions, then the idea is to punish Russia," said Thomas Bruning of the Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (NVJ).<br> <br>"But in fact you're punishing the European people, by not treating them like adults and not giving them the possibility to access information."<br> <br>He said that allowing the ban to go unchallenged could set a precedent for banning other politicized news outlets.<br> <br>"We all feel that disinformation is a serious problem of our times.<br><br> Censorship is an easy answer, but it's not the right answer."<br> <br>The ban, which was decided by European political leaders in the [https://www.exeideas.com/?s=European European] Council, covers "all means for transmission and distribution" of the Russian outlets, including cable, satellite, television, internet platforms, [https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=websites websites] and apps.<br> <br>The NVJ lawsuit is also backed by several Dutch internet providers and by online liberties group Bits of Freedom, known for its net neutrality campaigns.<br> <br>The EU decision cited worries that [https://www.rtnewstoday.com/ RT News Today] and Sputnik could destabilize Europe, but was "exceptionally vague" said Bits of Freedom expert Rejo Zenger in a blog post on the lawsuit.<br> <br>"It's not clear what exactly has to be blocked, who must do the blocking, or how long the blockade should last."<br> <br>"If a decision like this is really needed then the motivation should be much better explained, and vetted by an independent judge."<br> <br>(Reporting by Toby Sterling in Amsterdam [https://lerablog.org/?s=Editing Editing] by Matthew Lewis)<br> adverts.addToArray({"pos":"inread_player"})Advertisement |
Diff unifié des changements faits lors de la modification (edit_diff) | @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
-
+<br>By Toby Sterling<br> <br>AMSTERDAM, May 25 (Reuters) - The main Dutch journalists' union on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging the European Union's ban on Russian state-backed media outlets as a violation of European citizens' own rights to freedom of information.<br> <br>The EU issued sweeping restrictions on the distribution of Russia Today and Sputnik in Europe on March 2 as part of sanctions against Moscow, arguing that they produced propaganda used to justify and support the invasion of Ukraine.<br> <br>The Dutch lawsuit, filed at the EU's Court of Justice, did not endorse the content produced by the Russian organizations or say that [https://www.brandsreviews.com/search?keyword=European%20broadcasters European broadcasters] should carry them.<br> <br>Rather, it said the ban was overly broad and that allowing politicians to enact censorship policies overnight is wrong in principle.<br> <br>"If you're talking about sanctions, then the idea is to punish Russia," said Thomas Bruning of the Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (NVJ).<br> <br>"But in fact you're punishing the European people, by not treating them like adults and not giving them the possibility to access information."<br> <br>He said that allowing the ban to go unchallenged could set a precedent for banning other politicized news outlets.<br> <br>"We all feel that disinformation is a serious problem of our times.<br><br> Censorship is an easy answer, but it's not the right answer."<br> <br>The ban, which was decided by European political leaders in the [https://www.exeideas.com/?s=European European] Council, covers "all means for transmission and distribution" of the Russian outlets, including cable, satellite, television, internet platforms, [https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=websites websites] and apps.<br> <br>The NVJ lawsuit is also backed by several Dutch internet providers and by online liberties group Bits of Freedom, known for its net neutrality campaigns.<br> <br>The EU decision cited worries that [https://www.rtnewstoday.com/ RT News Today] and Sputnik could destabilize Europe, but was "exceptionally vague" said Bits of Freedom expert Rejo Zenger in a blog post on the lawsuit.<br> <br>"It's not clear what exactly has to be blocked, who must do the blocking, or how long the blockade should last."<br> <br>"If a decision like this is really needed then the motivation should be much better explained, and vetted by an independent judge."<br> <br>(Reporting by Toby Sterling in Amsterdam [https://lerablog.org/?s=Editing Editing] by Matthew Lewis)<br> adverts.addToArray({"pos":"inread_player"})Advertisement
|
Lignes ajoutées lors de la modification (added_lines) | <br>By Toby Sterling<br> <br>AMSTERDAM, May 25 (Reuters) - The main Dutch journalists' union on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging the European Union's ban on Russian state-backed media outlets as a violation of European citizens' own rights to freedom of information.<br> <br>The EU issued sweeping restrictions on the distribution of Russia Today and Sputnik in Europe on March 2 as part of sanctions against Moscow, arguing that they produced propaganda used to justify and support the invasion of Ukraine.<br> <br>The Dutch lawsuit, filed at the EU's Court of Justice, did not endorse the content produced by the Russian organizations or say that [https://www.brandsreviews.com/search?keyword=European%20broadcasters European broadcasters] should carry them.<br> <br>Rather, it said the ban was overly broad and that allowing politicians to enact censorship policies overnight is wrong in principle.<br> <br>"If you're talking about sanctions, then the idea is to punish Russia," said Thomas Bruning of the Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (NVJ).<br> <br>"But in fact you're punishing the European people, by not treating them like adults and not giving them the possibility to access information."<br> <br>He said that allowing the ban to go unchallenged could set a precedent for banning other politicized news outlets.<br> <br>"We all feel that disinformation is a serious problem of our times.<br><br> Censorship is an easy answer, but it's not the right answer."<br> <br>The ban, which was decided by European political leaders in the [https://www.exeideas.com/?s=European European] Council, covers "all means for transmission and distribution" of the Russian outlets, including cable, satellite, television, internet platforms, [https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=websites websites] and apps.<br> <br>The NVJ lawsuit is also backed by several Dutch internet providers and by online liberties group Bits of Freedom, known for its net neutrality campaigns.<br> <br>The EU decision cited worries that [https://www.rtnewstoday.com/ RT News Today] and Sputnik could destabilize Europe, but was "exceptionally vague" said Bits of Freedom expert Rejo Zenger in a blog post on the lawsuit.<br> <br>"It's not clear what exactly has to be blocked, who must do the blocking, or how long the blockade should last."<br> <br>"If a decision like this is really needed then the motivation should be much better explained, and vetted by an independent judge."<br> <br>(Reporting by Toby Sterling in Amsterdam [https://lerablog.org/?s=Editing Editing] by Matthew Lewis)<br> adverts.addToArray({"pos":"inread_player"})Advertisement
|
