>

Im surprised russia still has working internet. How are you here?
President Volodymyr Zelensky on Dec. 29 signed into law a controversial bill on the media.
The Ukrainian authorities argued that the law aims to bring Ukrainian legislation in line with EU law and fight Russian propaganda. 
Media reform is one of the EU's conditions for starting negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the bloc. The EU wanted Ukraine to adopt legislation to fight the influence of vested interests on the media. >

A quick Google search on this law and it looks like most of the stories I can find that are critical of this law are coming from Russian controlled areas much like this article. >

Kyiv Independent is a Russian news outlet ? You must be joking, right. This law essentially gives total media control to the government. Don’t forget there is election, yes despite the war, an election in 2023. So think what it will give ruling party >

I really don't think that Zelensky is in any danger of losing an election right now. >

Parliament not presidential. He could lose majority. It’s not a two party system >

I am going to go out on a limb and say chances are people are going to be pretty supportive of a government that's managing to fight off an invasion from a supposed super power. >

Not doubting the support for the government. Doubting the fairness and freedom of choice for people and other parties. Media controls A LOT so that can be used  as a tool to seat people’s opinion >

Folks, supporting Ukraine's right to sovereignty and self governance does not mean any criticism of policy means you must be Russian. Likewise "they're fighting a war" is not carte blanche for actions that would otherwise be dangerous and unjust.
See Korematsu v United States, Debs v United States >

No, but it's not unreasonable to want to control the media in a period of wartime, and with the modern rise of the use of propaganda and misinformation as a primary tool for authoritarians.
I'd want to keep an eye on it, but it doesn't really mean that it will be used to limit freedom of the press. I would think it unlikely due to their desire to maintain positive relations with NATO countries and the EU. Abusing it would undermine those goals. >

Ultimately media freedom is necessary to actually allow the people to express their will 
I wouldn’t be too confident about him winning support in the next election, especially if some other candidate proposes a peace treaty that stops all the death and misery 
This new law favours him massively and it is not a democratic thing >

If you think Ukrainians will vote for someone willing to kowtow to the Kremlin, I’ve got news for ya buddy. >

Before anyone loses their shit: The EFJ criticized this back in July. It's been months since then and it's gone through revisions. I don't speak Ukrainian so I can't personally verify what the bill actually says now, but my understanding was that the bill was criticized for granting too much power over non-traditional media like websites. Most of the Ukrainian sites I'm reading are saying that it's primarily focused on providing more control over traditional media broadcasting in it's current form. Unless a local or Ukrainian speaker confirms that it has been relatively unaltered a lot of the speculation in the comments section is misguided. 
The other aspect is that, to be frank, Journalists always argue for no regulation of Journalists. They are biased here by circumstance and creed, and as an American I have a very strong belief that they can't be trusted to represent themselves fairly in this matter. Misinformation thrives because the new Media cycle is broken, and special interests have been allowed to purchase and control Media with impunity. Yes, government regulation is an imperfect solution, but unregulated journalism is a disease. >


Unless a local or Ukrainian speaker confirms that it has been relatively unaltered a lot of the speculation in the comments section is misguided. 

No.  The burden of proof is on those who claim the law is different than that which has been confirmed, even if that confirmation was months ago. >

...I mean, no it's not. The expectation is that laws change from their draft forms. That's just how politics work.
Using a months old condemnation without context for if it's still relevant is dumb as a bag of bricks. You don't get to ignore questions of relevancy by arguing that a controversy is eternally relevant somehow. Plus this isn't an impossible question to answer, I just don't have any easy way to answer it myself. >


The law dramatically expands the media regulator's powers and gives it the authority to shut down news sites that are not officially registered as media without a court ruling. 
In July the European Federation of Journalists urged the Ukrainian authorities to withdraw the draft media law. The federation said that the law contained "many provisions that are contrary to European values."

That is yikes. Anyone that comes in later on could abuse that. >

Yes they could, and that may be a problem down the line. This is another of the many, many, many shitty things about war-- you can't afford to think ethically in the long-term, even if you're being invaded. With social media being used for what I'll go as far as to call mass brainwashing, and Russia having embraced this tactic, their enemies may very well have to restrict media/freedom of speech to keep the enemy from using it to their advantage.
Humans are such shit animals. It really bothers me that we still tend to do this 'good guys/bad guys' thing when actual war breaks out, as though life were a simple fable. War IRL is the erosion of everything that makes us human, on any and every side. Russia is 100% the aggressor here, but that means Ukraine has to be vicious and conniving in response. If Ukraine doesn't flex against said aggression, where does that lead them? >

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. >

yes and it was unconstitutional and wrong then too....
​
It was also HEAVILY abused. >

The office of Executive really only exists for one purpose in modern Democracy - and that is to make quick decisions in wartime. If our nation thought it was so wrong then, why didn't we reform the law afterwards? Marshall Law also allows for basically total control by the President as Commander in Chief. No? >

100% will be abused. Not even a fucking question. >

Typically the freedom of the press is very important and necessary for a freer society.
However, when faced with a literal war and a disinformation campaign by your enemies, it’s a tight rope to walk.
Not surprised more aggressive measures are being taken. The main hope is it will be walked back and relaxed when Ukraine finally kicks Russia’s butt out of their country. >

Between jailing his opponents and silencing media this doesn’t look great… >

No, he jailed people actively working with the occupying Russian forces. >

He jailed his political opponents >

By political opponents, you mean people who were actively working with the occupying Russian forces. >

He made a deal with separatist forces to fund them, if that is illegal, he will have his day in court. Are you going to claim that Zelensky is despotic because he acquiesced to the courts letting the former president go on his own recognizance? 
Next you are going to tell me that if the DOJ goes after Trump, that is the US locking up political rivals too. >

I’m saying the charges he’s claiming don’t seem to be true. It was the courts decision not to pursue charges at this time… the accusations don’t have substance behind them. >

If that was true, the court would have dropped the case. Notice that it didn't. >

Russian fanboys sticking up for Russia huh who are these objections coming from let me guess >

You can tell when this man talks that he is full of something.  He looks and acts like a paid actor.  Something is fishy over in Ukraine.  They just fought hard internally for democratic society. (doc: winter onfire? ) >

What's the point of this post? >

because i dont trust Zelensky and for all we know this could all be a pretense for taking ukraine out of the EU , supplant their democracy, or something... i got a lot of ideas based on things ive gleaned so idk.  im dumb so idk.  im just trying to think ok.  Please donthurt mah feelings.  You can  CALL it a democracy when you contorl the media.