What content bans does Europe have? /Confused European

Porn (now requires age verification), online libraries, movies, some news websites, sports (because of obscure copyright laws) and countless other things.

▲

viraptor an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is another "in Europe" thing. There's no "in Europe". Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, etc. will all have different rules.

▲

josefrichter 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m in the EU and haven’t encountered any of these, except the copyright restrictions - which is really a different matter.

▲

ivan_gammel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

if you are in Germany, try opening ria.ru. It’s not like we are deprived of something worthy - it is Russian propaganda after all, but it tells enough about freedom of speech.

▲

jeroenhd 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

With the German border maybe 10 minutes to the east of me, I can open that website just fine. Seems like an exclusively German problem, not a European one.

I don't think foreign propaganda was ever exempt from freedom of speech here in Europe (except the countries and regimes which lacked free speech, of course), it just wasn't much of a problem before the internet made opinions so easy to broadcast.

	▲	ivan_gammel 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Unfortunately EU is now developing practice of extrajudicial sanctions on EU and national level, targeting both media and individuals expressing points of views alternative to position of Brussels or Berlin. Vance was surprisingly right back then in Munich. It’s not just Russian propaganda, but now it is conveniently used as a blanket cover to sanction even EU citizens (see case of German journalist Hüseyin Doğru, whose only connection to Russia was a hosting of his pro-Palestinian outlet on a platform affiliated with RT).

▲

josefrichter 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm in Czechia, next to Germany. Just opened Ria Novosti and Russia Today in two other tabs, nothing blocked here.

▲

micw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am. It just opens. But I can't read russian ^^

	▲	ivan_gammel 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Looks like German firewall has more holes than Russian or Chinese one. Are you using VPN? It’s still blocked for me.

▲

warkdarrior 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ooooh, if freedom.gov helped bypass copyrights on sports and streaming websites, that would be fantastic!

▲

dgellow 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No?

▲

anthk 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Spaniard here. No, we don't. Every country has different laws. The European Union share some laws but not these.

	▲	sunaookami 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		LaLiga?

▲

jusssi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

List please. Surely there is a wiki page you can drop a link to, right?

▲

cal_dent 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

its wild to me how so much of online america has been radicalized into becoming nothing more that digital curtain twitchers

▲

ljlolel 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Russia Today is banned, for one

▲

Epa095 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You mean the TV station lost broadcasting-rights, or you mean the website it actually banned? Cause the website is certainly accessible for me from my European country, although that does not rule out that it is banned in some European countries.

▲

sunaookami 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

The website rt.com is banned in the whole EU due to a decret by von der Leyen which bypassed parliament. It's trivial to bypass since it's "only" a DNS block but it's still censorship (no matter how you think about the content of RT). Same for Sputnik and the relevant TV channels.

	▲	dgellow 26 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That’s a complete lie. I’m in Germany and can access rt.com perfectly fine
	▲	krige 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No it isn't. t. EU citizen.

▲

jampekka 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

rt.com works fine in Finland at least. I don't think we have website bans in general aside something like CSAM and copyright reasons, and even the latter at least is rare.

There seems to be a manufactured narrative from the US right how "Europe" is somehow doing large scale censorship.

▲

jeroenhd 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

rt.com loads just fine for me. If you want to do research into/get brainwashed by Russian propaganda, nothing is stopping you here.

	▲	3D30497420 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm in Germany and rt.com does not resolve for me. If I use a VPN and access via, say Austria, it does work.

▲

Gustomaximus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That seems crazy to me I read news there occasionally as I like to view opposite sides. Go to BBC, RT, France24 ,Al-Jazeera type sites and see what each has as their focus stories.

You're aware news sites are used to push agenda, some more than others, but that's half the interest of seeing what they push. And sometimes the more fringe have stories on what should be news but don't make it to mainstream media channels.

...anyway I'm more a believer in assuming people have a brain and can figure stuff out vs banning sites, both have danger to them but censorship seems the bigger danger to me.

▲

amarant 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True! Though I can't really say I mourn the loss, it is a Russian propaganda outlet dedicated to helping their expansion war. Is this the speech the USA is going to protect? It's still weird to me that the gringoes are helping the commies now, I guess I'm stuck in the old world order!

▲

carlosjobim 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One is Russian media, just as Russia bans European media.

Also the world's largest library is banned in Germany.

▲

jeroenhd 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Piracy is illegal in most countries. Unless you mean the American Library of Congress, but that's an American decision, not a European one.

▲

amarant 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The first one I'm ok with, the second one I'm not sure what you're saying? Google suggests the largest library in the world is the US Congress library, but I couldn't find any sources saying it's banned in Germany? (Also, it's a physical place in the US... What?)

Closest thing I could find to library banned in Germany was a collection of pirated material, which was blocked at a DNS level, meaning many users bypass the ban accidentally, and anyone who wants to can trivially use a different DNS.

I mean I'm probably more in favour of digital piracy than the next guy, but I had completely missed that were calling copyright protection censorship now?

	▲	Epa095 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		He probably means a famous pirating site, called library dot something.

▲

kettlecorn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think part of this is preempting concerns that the EU could ban or limit X / Twitter.

They've already fined X heavily for lacking transparency, like not providing a database of advertisers or allowing researchers to access internal data to evaluate misinformation concerns. The EU has threatened that if they need to they may ban or limit X.

Musk and conservatives view X as a critical tool to spread their preferred ideology, and Musk has shown he's not beyond algorithmic and UX manipulation to achieve desired outcomes.

▲

pembrook 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Censorship_in_Europe

▲

amarant 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Can we filter for current censorship? Hate to brake it to you but the top category in that page, "censorship in the soviet union" does not apply anymore.....

▲

pembrook 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Spain

1) Catalan Referendum Website Seizures (2017)

Spanish courts ordered ISPs to block dozens of pro-independence domains and mirror sites during the referendum. Civil Guard units physically entered data centers to seize servers tied to the Catalan government’s digital voting infrastructure.

2) GitHub Repository Takedown (2017)

Spain obtained a court order forcing GitHub to remove a repository that mirrored referendum voting code and site information, extending censorship beyond Spanish-hosted domains.

3) Rapper Convictions for Online Lyrics

Spanish rapper Valtònyc was convicted for tweets and lyrics deemed to glorify terrorism and insult the monarchy; he fled the country and fought extradition in Belgium for years.

⸻

France

4) Blocking of Protest Pages During Yellow Vests (2018–2019)

Authorities requested removals of Facebook pages and livestreams tied to the Yellow Vest protests, citing incitement and public order concerns.

5) Court-Ordered Removal of Election Content (2019 EU Elections)

French judges used expedited procedures under election-period misinformation law to order removal of allegedly false political claims within 48 hours.

6) Prosecution of Political Satire as Hate Speech

Several activists were fined or prosecuted for online posts targeting religious or ethnic groups in explicitly political contexts, even where framed as satire.

⸻

Germany

7) Mass Police Raids Over Social Media Posts

German police have conducted coordinated nationwide dawn raids targeting individuals accused of posting illegal political speech under hate-speech laws.

8) Removal of Opposition Content Under NetzDG

Platforms removed thousands of posts from nationalist or anti-immigration political actors within 24 hours to avoid heavy fines under NetzDG enforcement pressure.

9) Criminal Convictions for Holocaust Commentary Online

Individuals have received criminal penalties for online statements denying or relativizing Nazi crimes, even when framed in broader political debate contexts.

⸻

United Kingdom

10) Police Visits Over Controversial Tweets

British police have conducted “non-crime hate incident” visits to individuals’ homes over political tweets, creating official records despite no prosecution.

11) Arrests for Offensive Political Posts

Individuals have been arrested under public communications laws for posts criticizing immigration or religion in strongly worded terms.

12) Removal of Campaign Content Under Electoral Rules

Election regulators required digital platforms to remove or restrict political ads that failed to meet transparency requirements during active campaigns.

⸻

Italy

13) Enforcement of “Par Condicio” Silence Online

During mandated pre-election silence periods, online political content—including posts by candidates—has been ordered removed or fined.

14) Criminal Defamation Charges Against Bloggers

Italian bloggers critical of politicians have faced criminal defamation prosecutions for investigative posts during election cycles.

⸻

Finland

15) Conviction of Sitting MP for Facebook Posts

Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen was prosecuted for Bible-based comments posted online regarding sexuality and religion; although ultimately acquitted, the criminal process itself was lengthy and high-profile.

⸻

Sweden

16) Convictions for Anti-Immigration Facebook Posts

Swedish courts have convicted individuals for Facebook comments criticizing immigration policy when deemed “agitation against a population group.”

⸻

Netherlands

17) Criminal Case Against Opposition Politician

Dutch politician Geert Wilders was convicted (without penalty) for campaign-rally remarks later amplified online, deemed discriminatory.

⸻

Austria

18) Rapid Court Orders Against Political Posts

Austria’s updated online hate-speech regime enabled expedited court orders compelling removal of allegedly unlawful political speech within days.

⸻

Belgium

19) Prosecution of Political Party Messaging

Members of the Vlaams Belang party have faced legal sanctions for campaign messaging shared online deemed racist or discriminatory.

⸻

Switzerland

20) Criminal Fines for Referendum Campaign Speech

Swiss activists have faced criminal fines for online referendum messaging judged to violate anti-discrimination law during highly contentious votes.

▲

amarant 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you filter the ones that aren't obviously harmless like laws banning Nazi salutes or agitating violence against people based on race?

	▲	handoflixue 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		See, the problem is, "obviously harmless" varies by person: if you think it is obviously harmless to ban an entire political party, which ostensibly won a legitimate election, and certainly had a lot of popular support... well then, of course we should also ban whichever current political party you consider most evil, right? And then the next most evil political party, and so on, until people have the freedom that comes from knowing only Good, Proper, State-Sanctioned Political Parties exist! And of course, once it's illegal to agitate against violence, we just have to redefine violence: for instance, posting about Nazis puts them in danger, and they're all white, so clearly you're a racist for opposing Nazis. These aren't hypothetical examples: the people defending Free Speech have watched these slippery slopes get pulled out again and again. Misgendering a trans person is a "hate crime", reporting on the location of gestapo agents is "inciting violence", protesting against the state is "terrorism" And fundamentally, this is a lever that gets wielded by whoever is in power: even if you agree with the Left censoring Nazi salutes, are you equally comfortable with the Right censoring child mutilation sites (also known as "Trans resources")? SURELY "child mutilation" is "obviously harmless" to ban, right?

▲

seattle_spring 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a hate speech / violence law in the UK that is getting some people arrested for saying things like "round up all people of race X, put them into a hotel, and burn the hotel down." People like Joe Rogan and his ilk are re-packaging those examples as "people being arrested for just sharing their opinion."

▲

amarant 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Oh, is that what y'all are on about? I'm not too worried then. About Europe.

▲

stinkbeetle 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know what Joe Rogan says or who his ilk are, but this is a pretty extreme characterization of the situation that I don't think is accurate.

For example, UK police track what they consider to be undesirable "non-crime" speech, build databases of people, and intimidate them for these non crimes (knock on their doors, invite them to come to police station, advise them not to say such things, etc). This is quite a new thing, within the past ~10 years.

There have also been other high profile cases of people being arrested for posting things that were not like that burn the hotel down case. They arrested 12,000 people in 2023 and convicted 1,100 of those. For cases where the evidence is as cut and dried as posts made online, they could only secure convictions in 8% of cases, which seems staggering to me when UK's conviction rate generally is like 80%.

Even the conviction rate, even if you say yes there are laws to prohibit certain speech, how far is too far? Are these kinds of laws and convictions needed? Why don't all other countries need them? Why didn't UK need them 20 years ago when there was still internet and social media? Is it not concerning to you that we're told this kind of action is required to hold society together? I'm not saying that calls to violence don't happen or should be tolerated, but if it is not a lie that arresting thousands of people for twitter posts and things is necessary to keep society from breaking down then it seems like putting a bandaid on top of a volcano. It's certainly not developing a resilient, anti-fragile society, quite the opposite IMO.

Is nobody allowed to be concerned about any of this without being some horrible underground extremist, in your opinion?

▲

amarant 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Damn I keep forgetting the UK is still located in Europe. Ever since they left the union they feel like their own continent.

Actually they feel like they might secretly be the fifty first state!

▲

seattle_spring 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There have also been other high profile cases of people being arrested for posting things that were not like that burn the hotel down case

Such as?

> Is nobody allowed to be concerned about any of this without being some horrible underground extremist, in your opinion?

Horrible underground extremist? Not so much. More likely just someone who consumes a very particular slice of media that puts a dishonest (at best) spin on situations like this.

▲

stinkbeetle 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> > There have also been other high profile cases of people being arrested for posting things that were not like that burn the hotel down case

> Such as?

That was the only thing in my comment you took issue with? Great, that's easy to clear up because there's a few around. Here's one

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/yorkshire-man-a...

Arrested for saying "F--- Palestine. F--- Hamas. F--- Islam. Want to protest? F--- off to Muslim country and protest."

> Horrible underground extremist? Not so much. More likely just someone who consumes a very particular slice of media that puts a dishonest (at best) spin on situations like this.

Hmm. Was your previous post a dishonest (at best) spin on it too? That would be consistent with your claim if you are a consumer of a very particular slice of media and did not know you can find articles from a whole range of publications about this stuff easily on the internet.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/19/arresting-pa...

https://www.forbes.com.au/news/world-news/people-are-being-t...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2922w73e1o (Online speech laws need to be reviewed after Linehan arrest, says Streeting)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/13/uk-decision-to-ban-...

https://www.politico.eu/article/freedom-speech-suspicion-bri...

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/world/europe/graham-lineh...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/palestine-action-ruling...

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/03/uk/uk-farage-free-speech-...

https://www.fire.org/news/uk-government-issues-warning-think...

https://www.foxnews.com/world/shocking-cases-reveal-britains...

You really don't need to be some obscure basement dweller to have any kind of vague inkling that something might be a little on the nose in the proverbial state of Denmark.

▲

oezi 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The key thing to understand is that Europeans want clear rules around hate speech, online harassment and such. Thus lawmakers are acting to find laws which encapsulate these. In Germany, we have some simple ones surrounding using Nazi symbols and speech. These rules generally work well in our civil law context. Civil law usually is rather broad strokes and there might be cases where something injust happens which requires tuning laws.

If you come from a common law context the whole idea might seem strange.

▲

deaux 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The key thing to understand is that Europeans want clear rules around hate speech

Regardless of my personal thoughts on this (complicated), simply putting "many" in front of "Europeans" does a lot to diminish further alienation of those who don't, helping you achieve your goals. It takes 0.5 seconds.

	▲	oezi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed

▲

stinkbeetle 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The key thing to understand is that Europeans want clear rules around hate speech, online harassment and such.

Do they? Or is it being pushed upon them? And why is it "the key thing" here?

> Thus lawmakers are acting to find laws which encapsulate these.

I suspect it has been the reverse, the ruling class desperately wants those powers and if the common people are now in favor of them it is more than likely because of intensive campaigns from their governments and corporations to change their minds.

> In Germany, we have some simple ones surrounding using Nazi symbols and speech. These rules generally work well in our civil law context. Civil law usually is rather broad strokes and there might be cases where something injust happens which requires tuning laws.

Some laws existing does not mean some other laws won't be unjust. Or that legislated laws will always be right and not require "some tuning".

> If you come from a common law context the whole idea might seem strange.

The different systems of law don't seem all that strange to me at least, but the thread you are replying to is discussing censorship in the European nation of the UK.

Further, what we are discussing involves executive police powers (intimidation, arrests, compiling lists), as well as legislated laws, so it is not really just some quirk of common law at all.

▲

LAC-Tech an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think if you come from a German context the concept of free speech is probably strange to you in general - because no one in living memory has ever had it. Not in Weimar, not in the Nazi period, not in East Germany and not in the Federal Republic.

Unless you understand concepts like "Natural Rights" the idea of a government not being able to curtail what you say will remain completely foreign to you.

▲

oezi 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

That isn't really what we perceive (at least if educated). We see that Free Speech is not an absolute right, but is secondary to the most important right which for Germans is Human Dignity. It might be foreign to you because your constitution and history doesn't put the same value on it than our history taught us.

	▲	LAC-Tech a minute ago \| parent [-]
		How could German history have taught you anything about human dignity? You went from a military dictatorship to an unstable republic to a fascist state, then you split into military occupation zones, and then one of your military occupation zones annexed the other, the militaries left but you kept the laws, and now you arrest people for saying "from the river to the sea". Using your German-ness to talk to anyone else about freedom or human dignity is patently ridiculous. If you have an ideological point to make, make it, but the whole "as a German" angle just does not hold water. "As a German" your history shows you don't understand this. Your concept of Freedom of Speech is much closer to the Mainland Chinese model than an Anglo one.