The report says that in the past, when countries restricted access to foreign content on their territory, "in the vast majority of cases, this was done to maintain their own power or absolve themselves of responsibility."
The NPO noted that the situation that occurred in the EU with the blocking of RT and Sputnik was "a striking exception to this rule."
The authors of the report argue that "the mentioned sites disseminate inaccurate and provocative content, and international human rights standards allow the imposition of restrictions on freedom of expression in certain circumstances, which include armed conflicts."
“However, the ban introduced in the EU is comprehensive and affected not only materials related to military operations, but all the content of the sites mentioned.
In addition, there are no clear provisions on the termination of this ban, and the process of its introduction is devoid of proper oversight and transparency,” says Freedom House.
The authors of the report drew attention to the fact that no one in the EU consulted with civil society and telecommunications companies when a decision was made on the Russian media.
It is also noted that "the lack of clarity and specificity has led to the fact that companies frantically try to decide for themselves how to comply with the instructions of the authorities", as a result of which blocking of resources is not the same in different states.
“Furthermore, this ban sets a vicious precedent that may be used by democratic states in the future to counter unwanted information disseminated by other foreign government-funded media such as Chinese,” the report emphasizes.
Earlier, Deputy Head of the European Commission for Values and Transparency Vera Yurova said that the EC is considering taking further steps against Russian "propaganda" media.
She mentioned this when responding to a request from German MEP David McAllister about the work of RT TV channels and the Sputnik agency in the European Union.