comment: >
  
  There are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.
context: Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published? >
  
  Yes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.
  There was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge. >
  
  Super interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.
  The voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case. >
  
  American's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with "You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option." >
  
  Winston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."
  Is that the quote you are thinking of? >
  
  It was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions. >
  
  Lawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.
  But organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. 
  The law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. 
  Edit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out. >
  
  While this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians
  Still a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry >
  
  How is censorship a right step in any direction? >
  
  It's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.