comment: >
  
  Wonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Depends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation. >
  
  I think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands. >
  
  I mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.
  Journalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure. >
  
  Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.
  edit: left out Abe's last name >
  
  What's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln? >
  
  It does make sense to block Russian "news" channels but its easily open to abuse >
  
  This. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. 
  It also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war. >
  
  I vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia. >
  
  That's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it >
  
  Like what? >
  
  no more oligarchs >
  
  You really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country. >
  
  Lmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas >
  
  Whats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name? >
  
  They’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years. >
  
  One of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.
  my father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.
  As he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.
  They would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption. >
  
  From what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so! >
  
  Exactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down. >
  
  A nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war. >
  
  Shutting on and off news websites?  Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.
  ​
  People should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake. >
  
  Precisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.
  I hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. 
  Let's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western. >
  
  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? >
  
  He got mad and decided to ruin the world. >
  
  "I think it's good when we do it" is a dangerous justification >
  
  Yes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to "control the flow of information from abroad". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.
  Though I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too? >
  
  The thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed. >
  
  Not really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.
   
  Decision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.
  The article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't  a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.
  Also mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.
   
  Do we have a link to the actual text of the new law? >
  
  Slippery slope >
  
  Most of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation. >
  
  Private companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.
  A lot of laws created with "good intentions" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine. >
  
  France is blocking RT >
  
  These things happen during war, in every country.
  The real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo. >
  
  
  The real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over
  
  None of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their "temporary" emergency powers. >
  
  The exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization >
  
  Like when they banned left wing opposition parties? >
  
  Article says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says... >
  
  Governments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation. >
  
  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 >
  
  People have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like. >
  
  Cool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure. >
  
  Ha! >
  
  That sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine. >
  
  It’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes…. >
  
  Considering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after. >
  
  Western media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how "Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses". >
  
  I mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:
  are there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.
  Are there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.
  Will Business Insider try and "both sides" this to get the "BWUH 1984" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes. >
  
  Well, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.
  One of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started. >
  
  Freedom Fighter bans Dissent >
  
  This is never good >
  
  You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
  … Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk >
  
  Government controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong >
  
  When has censorship ever been on the right side of history? >
  
  Lincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south >
  
  "don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda" >
  
  And so it begins. >
  
  I wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government. >
  
  The west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit >
  
  What irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better… >
  
  As a country at war, censorship is not surprising.  What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over. >
  
  Something a totally not fascist would do, right? >
  
  when news reporting is killing your soldiers >
  
  He already banned opposing political parties. What’s next? >
  
  They also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as. >
  
  War tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying. >
  
  And yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay. >
  
  Honestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. 
  The test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray. >
  
  “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. >
  
  So censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it. >
  
  The headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. 
  But I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to "weaponized media" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question "Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?" 
  I'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion? >
  
  I have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe >
  
  afaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms. >
  
  EU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be >
  
  During war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked. >
  
  If the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time? >
  
  To be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.
  I'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.
  I could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good. >
  
  But I thought he was about democracy? >
  
  Good if it's for the russian news websites only!
  Now, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?
  Ar we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not? >
  
  Finally someone who understands what is going on here. >
  
  Genius >
  
  Auto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.
  Not at all supporting suppression of dissent,  but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. 
  Parading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents. >
  
  No idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the  parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB "church" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before. >
  
  The Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.
  Ukraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win. >
  
  We need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites. >
  
  Oh no! >
  
  I just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something.     
  Sadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press >
  
  Why not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side. >
  
  Hmmmm. Interesting >
  
  The beginning of the end >
  
  Such a fascist >
  
  Churches next? >
  
  Already >
  
  It's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink. >
  
  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. >
  
  They didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.
  Edit: grammar >
  
  Having a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive
  I’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic