>

I support this completely.  They are at war for their way of life.  Russia has a history of spreading fake news and using it to create constant in-fighting.  My hope is that international pressure will ensure that this new law is not abused after the war is over.  With Russia as a neighbor, they should take the extra steps to protect their populace from disinformation.
It does make sense to block Russian "news" channels but its easily open to abuse >

Baltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated. >

One the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine. >

Here in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.
After he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him? >

Fox News has certainly fucked up the US. Pure, unadulterated, fascist propoganda. Old white people can't get enough. >

CNN and MSNBC? They’re all the same peddling their same leaning nonsense to their viewers >

Yeah exactly basically every news network has bias for an agenda >

Anyone else remember the older folks warning us not to fall things when computers became popular? Now we got old folks being radicalized by the news. >

“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here. >

The problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse. >

“Could” ranges from “clear path” all the way to “I heard the words ‘media law’ and that’s often what censorship gets called”. >

Totally agreed. It’s an interesting choice of wording but there could also be measures in place. Todays media is not unbiased or trustworthy so, I too, hold baited breath on this. War is a bitch. >

It should only be valid as long as the war against Russia. >

Russian "new" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked. >

"I think it's good when we do it" is a dangerous justification >

Ukraine is in a war for its survival.  Things are different in a war like that.  The US suspended a lot of civil liberties during WW2 even though that was not a war for its survival (it was for a lot of other countries, but not the US).  We should reserve judgement to see how it's actually applied, and if it's too broad, revisit it when the war is over. >

Russia China bans websites "fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights" 
someone else does it "understandable, well within their rights, good step"
An accurate portrayal of exceptionalism >

Why do people think freedom of speech and press means the right to spread bullshit, outright lies, propaganda and slander and libel? >

Because once you start banning that propaganda, you need to set the bar where something stops being propaganda, and starts being genuine. Usually the ones who set those bars do so in their own interest >

Broadcasters must get a license from the government. Ukraine is in an existential war, so yes the bar is going to be set against anything that does not help in our struggle. Do you think any country allows enemy propaganda to he broadcast in the middle of a war? >

Your mistake is assuming that the government is innocent when it comes to abusing this system. Look no further than Europe to see many examples.
Not now, maybe, but in a few years, once Zelensky resigns, we'll get another corrupt politician (because Ukraine fucking attracts them like bees to some honey), who'll abuse the fuck out of this. It is useful during the war, yes, but chances that this law will be cancelled once the war is over is minimal. >

They were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane. >

Well apparently he was a bad “peace president” with only something like 5% support from his citizens according to polls before the war started. He has done a good job during the wartime though. And yes this war is absolutely insane. >

His approval rating was a little over 30% at its lowest point,  shortly before the war. Polish commentators were saying it's because he introduced some anti-oligarch law. >

His plan is to become part of the EU. There is only one way. >

What are you talking about >

....they have proof.... >

Must have been one hell of a discovery for the OP to leave Germany and go settle in Dubai. Can’t make this shit up. >

Block Russian propaganda channels. That's a good thing. Need to change the title.