RT's bank account got frozen!

[Shofercia]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-today-bank-accounts-frozen-uk-rt-money-finances-freeze-state-media-putin-a7365406.html%3famp?client=safari

Bank accounts belonging to Russia's state broadcaster Russia Today have reportedly been frozen in the UK.

The network's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan tweeted the news: "Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. 'The decision is not subject to revision'.

She added: "Long live freedom of speech!"

Well done UK RBS.

Russia threatens to freeze BBC's assets in retaliation.
RT's assets get unfrozen.
RBS comes around with its tail between its legs.
No one is really surprised.

Why does free speech not extend to RT?

Because RT isn't a news organization. It's an acknowledged propaganda arm of the Putin Administration, against which the UK Government has laid sanctions in response to Russia's invasion of other nations.

In short: I'm astonished that their assets weren't frozen years ago, when the sanctions first went into effect.

Something tells me that if BBC's assets were frozen in Russia, you'd be singing to a different tune. Besides, do you really want to start looking into countries that the UK invaded? Or was the British Empire spread for the sole purpose of spreading human rights and taking up the white man's burden? And before you say "a while ago" didn't the UK invade Iraq in 2003?

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't think the government did anything. At least, nothing is immediately obvious.
The banking group that serviced them decided it didn't want them as a customer.

Color me skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if the British government had a hand in this.

I guess we'll find out.

I don't know if this has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but the UK government (or at least a spokesperson for the PM) categorically denied any government involvement, stated that this was nothing to do with existing or new sanctions on Russia, and that this was entirely a private business decision on the part of RBS group.

RBS group is partially owned by the UK state as a result of the banking bailout.

[Greed and Death]

It depends on why the accounts were frozen. If accounts were frozen because RT was engaged money laundering or another crime that is fine, if their accounts were frozen because they are a Putin shill, then their rights would be frozen.

They haven't had their broadcast license yanked though. Legally they are still able to broadcast.

Yes just not able to pay their UK broadcasters, vendors, and maintenance crew. Money may not be speech but many times the spending of it is necessary for speech to occur.

[Alvecia]

They haven't had their broadcast license yanked though. Legally they are still able to broadcast.

Yes just not able to pay their UK broadcasters, vendors, and maintenance crew. Money may not be speech but many times the spending of it is necessary for speech to occur.

Does freedom of speech even apply to companies?

[Greed and Death]

In fairness they normally drop you because there is a money laundering investigation and they can not give a reason because it would disrupt the government's investigation.

They will drop you if they find out you have been involved with bitcoins in any way.

The presumption there is that you are money laundering.

Also they drop you if you are not profitable as happened in the US when Debit card fees were tightly capped.

[Greed and Death]

Yes just not able to pay their UK broadcasters, vendors, and maintenance crew. Money may not be speech but many times the spending of it is necessary for speech to occur.

Does freedom of speech even apply to companies?

Yes.

[Alvecia]

Does freedom of speech even apply to companies?

Yes.

How? Why?
Freedom of speech is a human right, correct? I know America considers companies people, but does Europe? If not, why would a human right apply to a non-human entity?

[Greed and Death]

Yes.

How? Why?
Freedom of speech is a human right, correct? I know America considers companies people, but does Europe? If not, why would a human right apply to a non-human entity?

Because certain methods of speech like broadcasting require corporate organization, and corporations are made up of and ran by people.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes.

How? Why?
Freedom of speech is a human right, correct? I know America considers companies people, but does Europe? If not, why would a human right apply to a non-human entity?

If the UK actually banned journalistic organisations that weren't the BBC, that would be a major impact on freedom of speech, even if those people were allowed to post their opinions as individuals.

Because it's not just freedom of speech, it's freedom of the press as well.

[Alvecia]

How? Why?
Freedom of speech is a human right, correct? I know America considers companies people, but does Europe? If not, why would a human right apply to a non-human entity?

Because certain methods of speech like broadcasting require corporate organization, and corporations are made up of and ran by people.

I dunno, something seems off about that.
Like you're too broadly defining speech, and incorrectly applying a persons speech. Adhereing more to the exact letter than the spirit of the right.

[New Chalcedon]

Because certain methods of speech like broadcasting require corporate organization, and corporations are made up of and ran by people.

I dunno, something seems off about that.
Like you're too broadly defining speech, and incorrectly applying a persons speech. Adhereing more to the exact letter than the spirit of the right.

You're missing the point. G&D's a hard-Right fan; he'd probably vote to elect a corporation to the Presidency if he could. In his world, corporations have rights and people de facto don't.

[Greed and Death]

I dunno, something seems off about that.
Like you're too broadly defining speech, and incorrectly applying a persons speech. Adhereing more to the exact letter than the spirit of the right.

You're missing the point. G&D's a hard-Right fan; he'd probably vote to elect a corporation to the Presidency if he could. In his world, corporations have rights and people de facto don't.

At several million dollars a year for a local license, if you do not allow people to exercise their rights through a corporation in this case then only people like Trump could afford to have a national broadcast license and free speech.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Breitbart? Infowars? WND?

RT. America! They even habla Español.

RT. UK. should have used the Bank of China.

Edit - Money is not frozen but they will have there accounts closed sometime in December. Russia is threatening to do the same to the BBC Russia.

Wait, RT has Spanish broadcasting? Since when?!

[New Chalcedon]

RT. America! They even habla Español.

RT. UK. should have used the Bank of China.

Edit - Money is not frozen but they will have there accounts closed sometime in December. Russia is threatening to do the same to the BBC Russia.

Wait, RT has Spanish broadcasting? Since when?!

How else do you think Putin gets Latin America to believe his propaganda? After all, he won the Hugo Chavez Peace Prize! -rolls eyes-

[Imperializt Russia]

RT. America! They even habla Español.

RT. UK. should have used the Bank of China.

Edit - Money is not frozen but they will have there accounts closed sometime in December. Russia is threatening to do the same to the BBC Russia.

Wait, RT has Spanish broadcasting? Since when?!

Russia Today is an international channel aimed at Russian expats. At one time or another, it was probably intended to interest a western audience, before it became the western propaganda piece we know it as today.

[New Chalcedon]

Wait, RT has Spanish broadcasting? Since when?!

Russia Today is an international channel aimed at Russian expats. At one time or another, it was probably intended to interest a western audience, before it became the western propaganda piece we know it as today.

......Wwwwwestern propaganda piece.

Really.

Damn, you're so far through the mirror that you probably think Tweedledum and Tweedledee are the ghosts of Thatcher and Reagan.

[Imperializt Russia]

Russia Today is an international channel aimed at Russian expats. At one time or another, it was probably intended to interest a western audience, before it became the western propaganda piece we know it as today.

......Wwwwwestern propaganda piece.

Really.

Damn, you're so far through the mirror that you probably think Tweedledum and Tweedledee are the ghosts of Thatcher and Reagan.

Sorry, it was badly phrased.

"Propaganda piece targeted specifically at the west".
When the Kremlin wants to disseminate something directly to western media, it's RT that drops it.

My hands are cold.

[Pope Joan]

Why does a Russian state propaganda organ suddenly care about freedom of speech?

The BBC has for some years now also been stuffed with state propaganda. They have never been objective about Russia; this seems to be an old habit of thought in the UK. ALthough they have since tried to tidy up their warmongering against Iraq, they were (during the time when all important decisions were being made) wholly on board with the Blair government about WMD and Saddam.

[Geilinor]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-today-bank-accounts-frozen-uk-rt-money-finances-freeze-state-media-putin-a7365406.html%3famp?client=safari

Bank accounts belonging to Russia's state broadcaster Russia Today have reportedly been frozen in the UK.

The network's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan tweeted the news: "Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. 'The decision is not subject to revision'.

She added: "Long live freedom of speech!"

Well done UK.

I don't consider this "well done". Regardless of RT's political leanings and perception as a Russian propaganda outfit, it's not really a good thing when national governments start freezing their assets and impede on their ability to do their job as a journalistic organization. Only an extremely good reason, like RT being revealed as a sponsor of terrorism, could get me to approve of this slight against freedom of the press.

Their account was frozen by the bank, not the British government.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why does a Russian state propaganda organ suddenly care about freedom of speech?

The BBC has for some years now also been stuffed with state propaganda. They have never been objective about Russia; this seems to be an old habit of thought in the UK. ALthough they have since tried to tidy up their warmongering against Iraq, they were (during the time when all important decisions were being made) wholly on board with the Blair government about WMD and Saddam.

Whether or not they have been "objective" about Russia is an interesting matter to discuss (in fact, I will seek out BBC articles to find the [i]least[/i[ biased opinion on a given topic, along with the Independent), but they've certainly not made outright falsifications with the sole purpose of attacking the Russian state or its fundamental position.

Unlike, say, the Russian state.

[Vassenor]

The BBC has for some years now also been stuffed with state propaganda.

Well now that sounds like a claim that needs a citation or three.

[Bakery Hill]

Political power games. Of course you can interpret this as "evil Western governments attempt silence the truth" or "subversive Russian propaganda tool rightfully confronted" depending on your own limited ideology. Which seems to be what this thread's devolved into.