Europe Is Not Censoring Speech. It Is Governing Amplification by Restricting Certain Media.

Europe has not abolished free expression since 2022. It has tightened the pipes through which speech flows. Through sanctions law and platform regulation, governments have moved from policing speakers to governing distribution, arguing that resilience requires friction.

Ask an ordinary viewer in Paris or Berlin why RT vanished from their screen in 2022 and you do not get a lecture on hybrid warfare. You get a simpler question: why can I not watch it and decide for myself? The law says this is resilience. To some citizens, it feels like management.

In March 2022, days after Russia invaded Ukraine, the European Union adopted restrictive measures suspending the broadcasting activities of RT and Sputnik in the EU. European Council, 2 March 2022. The decision prohibited operators from transmitting or facilitating those outlets across member states.

European officials described the move as a response to systematic information manipulation supporting aggression. It was framed as part of sanctions policy, not media regulation.

The measure was challenged before the EU General Court. The Court upheld it, concluding that the restrictions were proportionate in light of the objectives pursued. RT France v Council summary.

Moscow reacted sharply. Russian officials described the ban as censorship and evidence of Western double standards. TASS coverage of Russian response. RT itself characterised the suspension as political suppression rather than regulatory necessity. Those statements are partisan. They are also part of the record.

The legal debate concerns proportionality. The public debate concerns confidence. If democratic citizens cannot be trusted to assess propaganda, critics ask, what exactly is being protected?

The speech question broadened during the Gaza conflict. European capitals saw sustained demonstrations, digital mobilisation, and accusations of selective moderation. Platforms removed content citing safety policies. Activists complained of reduced reach. Governments stressed public order and security.

None of this proves systemic censorship. It does show heightened sensitivity. In moments of geopolitical strain, tolerance narrows. Distribution becomes contested terrain.

For citizens who already distrust institutions, restrictions reinforce a suspicion that elites manage narratives rather than debate them. The argument is not sophisticated. It is visceral. If you are confident in your position, why block exposure?

The Digital Services Act became fully applicable across the European Union in February 2024. European Commission notice. It imposes systemic duties on large platforms: risk assessments, mitigation measures, transparency obligations.

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act follows a similar architecture, with enforcement rolling through 2024 and 2025 under Ofcom. UK Government explainer.

These laws do not criminalise dissent. They regulate infrastructure. The risk burden shifts to intermediaries. Algorithms adjust. Moderation tightens. Lawful but controversial speech becomes costlier to distribute.

No dramatic knock at the door. No show trials. Just friction.

European institutions defend these shifts as resilience policy. The European External Action Service has published threat reports describing foreign information manipulation as persistent and coordinated. EEAS threat report.

From that perspective, restricting state aligned media and imposing intermediary duties are defensive measures, not ideological ones.

Civil liberties organisations are less sanguine. The International Press Institute warned in 2022 that banning media outlets, even hostile ones, raises serious freedom of expression concerns. IPI statement.

The core concern is durability. Emergency tools, once normalised, rarely disappear entirely. What begins as crisis management can become governance baseline.

Analysts have documented how restricted outlets adapted to EU bans through alternative hosting and distribution channels. GMF analysis. The system is not sealed. It is slowed.

Europe has not ended free speech. It has recalibrated how speech circulates. The architecture of amplification is now an object of governance.

Democracies can defend themselves. The unresolved question is whether, once tightened, the gates are ever fully reopened.