Tag: freedom of speech

YouTube: Inquisition-style verdict

Blog, freedom of speech, Human rights, International, World

Brussels 24.09.2026 Today I have recevied one more vague letter regarding the reasons for closing my channel for 90 days. Plenty of words without any evidence of violation. (Image: courtesy Portuguese Gravity)
Here is the “final answer” from the YouTube:
“Thank you for taking time to write back.
“I understand that you strongly disagree with our enforcement decision and are seeking a specific breakdown of which aspect of the policy your video violated, especially when comparing your content to major news networks.
“As previously stated, your video was reviewed by our Trust and Safety team and found to violate our policy regarding violent extremists or criminal organizations. When a video is removed under this policy, it means the content was found to be produced by, or was glorifying, violent criminal or terrorist organizations.
“While we recognize that you are reporting on a global news event as a journalist, our internal specialists evaluated your specific video and determined that the way the content was presented did not meet the strict requirements for an Educational, Documentary, Scientific, or Artistic (EDSA) exception.
“For security reasons, we do not provide line-by-line breakdowns or timestamps of policy violations, nor do we debate comparisons with other channels’ content. If you believe other channels are violating our policies, we encourage you to use the reporting tool on those specific videos.
“Because the specialized team has fully reviewed your appeal and their decision is final, we will not be conducting another review or overturning this strike. As we have provided all the available context regarding this enforcement, we consider this specific matter closed and cannot offer any further escalations.”

As you see from the text above there is no explanation offered for the decision to deprive me of freedom of speech for 90 days. The shutting down of my YouTube channel for three months leads to a total loss of the audience. There is a clear intention to damage, and destroy me as an influencer.
Why? Why leave exactly the same information with the TV channels unhindered? I have an explanation: we, the creators, are used to attracting audiences, and are being removed as soon as we start competing with the TV channels.
In the piece destroyed by the YouTube censors I have informed the audiences about the death of Prigozhin in the plane crash earlier than the big broadcasters, and quoted competent sources – PMC Wagner themselves.
Meanwhile the TV channels are failing miserably, losing trust of the spectators, who are switching to more trusted sources as bloggers, and influencers.

https://platform.x.com/widgets.js

As you see the TV channels entered the digital platforms, and tried to collect missing views in this format, cutting their news production in shorter videos, mimicKing the style of bloggers, and podcasters.

If comparing the situation with the words of YouTube CEO Neal Mohan the structure of the “foodchain” is as follows: welcoming the newcomers who are potential audience for the TV Channels presented on the platform; attract them by the original content of the creators, let them grow until a few of them are becoming competitors, and they erase them.
My channel was silenced after I got 125K subscribers, and millions of views.

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan has frequently emphasized that supporting and empowering newcomers is a core priority for the platform. Since taking over as CEO in 2023, Mohan has focused on growing the creator economy and expanding monetization so that hundreds of thousands of new creators can earn money for the first time. In his official annual strategy letters and interviews, Mohan’s approach to welcoming new voices on the platform. Yes, they are the spectators, and soon as they are competitive creators representing the alternative to the TV Channels they are kicked out.
Look at me now!

YouTube: my channel arrest for “intentions”?!

Politics, World, Conflict, Human rights, International, Blog, freedom of speech

Brussels 23.09.2026 Today I received an answer from YouTube support which remained vague. The relation between my announcement of death of the boss of the “criminal organisation”*, and the accusations of the Community Rules violations are not established. All the other announcements of the same event stayd on display on YouTube. The event was reported globaly considered of pulibc importance.
YouTube answer: “We understand your concerns regarding the recent policy action taken on your video, especially given your long-standing career in international journalism and the presence of similar reporting across major news outlets.

Content intended to praise, promote, or aid violent extremist or criminal organizations is not allowed on YouTube. These organizations are not allowed to use YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment. In some cases, we may make exceptions for content with educational, documentary, scientific or artistic context, including content that is in the public’s interest.

We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation. We may prevent repeat offenders from taking policy trainings in the future. Learn more about channel or account terminations.

I understand your frustration, but please know that we have thoroughly investigated your request and, I’m afraid there is nothing more I can add at this stage. ”

My answer today:
“Thank you for your answer.
However it doesn’t contain specific information about the grounds of the measure taken against me.
You write: ““Content intended to praise, promote, or aid violent extremist or criminal organizations is not allowed on YouTube”, pointing to three unacceptable intentions:

Intention to praise criminal organizations
Intention to promote criminal organizations
Intention to aid criminal organizations

Which of them did you apply to my video?
Taking into consideration the gravity of the stigma YouTube cast on me as a journalist, these accusations can not be taken lightly.

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan has already made a number of public promises to improve the system, and I count on his promises.
So far I haven’t received any explanation how the rule you have quoted correlates with the information I had released on the death of the boss of the criminal organisation on August 23, 2023 three years ago.

It was reported on a global scale, and all the other announcements of the same event are left on YouTube display unhindered. I have already sent you a list of the TV channels presented on your platform with exactly the same information.”

Please find the information in my preiouvs posts.
Those who would like to stand for freedom of speech, can sing a petition below:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-neal-mohan-from-being-ceo-of-youtube?source_location=topics_page

Общая ситуация со свободой слова в Европе – описание здесь:

YouTube vs Me: necrology as advertising ?!

Blog, freedom of speech, Human rights, International, Russia, World

Brussels, September 21, 2026. Dear viewers of my YouTube channel @AnnaVanDensky, today I received a response from Mr. Neal Mohan’s team that took me by surprise. It concerns a video announcing the death of the Wagner PMC leader in a plane crash. That video—posted three years ago, on August 23, 2023 — was taken down THREE YEARS LATER, and the channel was suspended for three months on the following grounds:

“We reviewed the video and concluded that it violates our Community Guidelines.
“YouTube prohibits content that praises, promotes, or facilitates the activities of violent criminal organizations.” Such organizations are prohibited from using YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.

“We removed the video because it violates our policy regarding violent extremist or criminal organizations: it contains material created by such organizations or glorifying their activities.
“Additional information can be found in the Help Center.”

So, does the announcement of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death—confirmed by the Wagner PMC—contain material “created by the PMC” or material that “glorifies” it? There is a significant difference. The question is: how can a report on the death of Prigozhin and his military strategist Utkin in a plane crash possibly “glorify” their activities? I won’t get carried away with irony regarding the “appeal” of such an advertisement—the prospect of dying in a plane crash. Instead, I will address the argument that censors are likely to try to level against me.

Under US law, the Wagner PMC is designated as a “Significant Transnational Criminal Organization”; however, the status of a full-fledged terrorist organization on the official US list (FTO) entails specific legal nuances and distinctions.

Consequently, quoting a statement from a criminal—or even terrorist—organization that confirms the death of its leader is lawful if done for informational, journalistic, or academic purposes. Simply reproducing or relaying factual information originating from a group deemed illegal under US jurisdiction does not violate the law.

Major media outlets regularly quote official statements …or press releases from organizations designated as terrorist or criminal. For example, reports on the death of a leader resulting from a drone strike or a special operation, intended to inform the public. Coverage of events of global significance is protected by principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have currently initiated correspondence with the YouTube team to clarify the exact nature of the claims against me. I am awaiting a response. If I do not receive one in the coming days, I will have to seek legal counsel. Naturally, slander cannot be left unaddressed. Stay tuned!

(Image above: courtesy Elimende Inagella)

EU Media: Ursula’s Colonial remnants

Blog, EU, Human rights, Politics

Brussels 30.03.2025 During the hearing on the European Commission self-glorification “propaganda” the MEP Elisabeth DIERINGER ( @E_Dieringer_MEP ) said that she is concerned with the accumulating of accreditation refusals for independent journalists, who are not allowed to enter the institutions press-events.
The problem manifested itself during the second term of Ursula von der Leyen in a way it became visible to broader public. Less than modest presence of journalists during press-conferences can be perceived by a TV spectator as a lack of interest, however if one takes interest in the EU Commission accreditation rules an alternative vision of causes of this feeble presence occurs. It is also useful to remind that accreditation is a form of public control of the institutions performance.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

To receive the annual accreditation to the EU institutions: the press-centers of the European Commission, European Council, and the European Parliament, a journalist should be compliant with three criteria: become a resident of Belgium, regularly cover the EU affairs, and… pass the financial screening.

The financial screening is described as follows: “journalism must be the main source of income”, meaning a candidate should submit the totality of financial documents for last two years to an anonyms Committee composed by an unknown criteria, who will consider the entirety of the income, and pronounce their judgement. Within these rules, imposed by Ursula von der Leyen Commission two elements are especially striking, the request to submit the financial documents without any frame to guarantee proper handling of the private financial information; and anonymity of the “judges”.
@MCC_BrusselsThese Commission financial screening demands are at odds with the rights of media companies to keep the information about the fees to freelances confidential. Paradoxically Ursula von der Leyen has been ultra defensive regarding the grants of the European Commission to media companies, keeping the information as top secret, although thanks to the MCC ( @MCC_Brussels) report signed by Thomas Fazi, it became clear that tens, and hundreds of millions of public funds are distributed in undisclosed procedures to ensure positive coverage of the EU institution’s activities.

On the flipside is the submitting of the entirety of financial documents to Ursula von der Leyen Commission anonyms Committee without any obligation from their behalf to guarantee a minimum discretion. On contrary to tax authorities the Commission’s Committee doesn’t establish any regulatory frame in treating this external financial information.

The other aspect of the unusual among organizations request for financial screening of the income of the journalist is the basis of this initiative is rooted in Belgium Colonial history. In 1963 King Albert II signed a law, which was officially was designed to protect the status of journalist in the society, but in reality this piece of legislation to transform journalism into a price prohibitive profession, unattainable for Africans, who broke away from Empire. Nowadays in Belgium the situation is unchanged, and preserving the legislation-remnant of the other era.
However the European Commission as an international organization is not obliged to follow the suit, and replicated the rules based on Colonial era frustrations, and inhibitions.

https://commission.europa.eu/about/contact/press-services/media-accreditation_en

Nevertheless the most egregious element is not the totalitarian impulse of Ursula von der Leyen Commission to inspect pockets of journalists as such, but establishing the correlation between earning, ana professional status, which allows those journalists who receive generous grants from the Commission to be in the first ranks in this shrouded obscure scheme. Commission distributes grants, and than grants accreditation to financially successful recipients of their own generosity. What a travesty! Ultimus hypocrita omnis…
.

EU further restricts freedom of speech

Blog, Conflict, EU

Brussels 24.02.2025 The EU Commission cheered the Council’s adoption of the 16th Russia sanctions package aligned with the III year anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war, including ban of a number of Russian mass media outlets.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

“As Russia’s illegal aggression enters its fourth year, this package is designed to further ramp up pressure on the aggressor and is part of the EU’s unwavering commitment to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine” reads the official text.
“In the 16th package, the EU has extended the prohibition to broadcast content to 8 Russian media outlets (EADaily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation and Krasnaya Zvezda) because these are under the permanent control of the Russian leadership and systematically participate in spreading misinformation and propaganda, which constitutes a threat to the Union’s public order and security” the reads the text of EU Commission Q&A page.
The explanation resonates with the words of the U.S. Vice-President J.D.Vance at Munich Security Conference: “…Now, to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old, entrenched interests hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like “misinformation” and “disinformation,” who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion, or, God forbid, vote a different way, or, even worse, win an election”.
However the acknowledgment of mistakes, and admitting the failures are the most complicated mechanisms of human psychology, often causing well-known effect of “continuation of investment in failure”, which is both costly, and irrational waste of precious resources, including time.
The initial decision to cut off Russia Today TV channel in breach of the Lisbon Treaty Article 11 (
https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information)
was a precedent to open the gates into Soviet-like era of repression of freedom of speech, which later became normalized, and shifted from periphery to the centre, becoming the major instrument of dealing with the opponents – shut down. Unfortunately the pattern causes the irreparable damages to the EU project, indicating to lack of arguments, and deficiency of moral high ground.

EU stands with Russian civil society

Blog, EU, Europe, Human rights

Brussels 23.07.2021 “Russian authorities recently announced a number of new decisions targeting independent media outlets, journalists and civil society organisations” reads the statement by the European External Action Service spokesperson on the continued crackdown on independent media outlets, journalists and civil society in Russia.

“The Institute of Law and Public Policy (ILPP) and a number of journalists were designated as so-called “foreign agents”, and the media outlet Project Media, Inc. was declared a so-called “undesirable organisation”. In addition, the association of lawyers and journalists Team 29 (Komanda 29), defending human rights and fundamental freedoms in Russia, decided to cease its activities following pressure and unjustified accusations by the Russian authorities”.

“The cumulative impact of these latest developments, in conjunction with a raft of repressive measures targeting highly respected NGOs and individuals in Russia, results in further quashing dissent, opposition, critical voices and independent institutions from the Russian public sphere. This is particularly worrisome ahead of the State Duma elections in September”.

“The European Union has repeatedly condemned Russian laws on “foreign agents” and “undesirable organisations”, as they run counter to Russia’s international obligations and human rights commitments, including with regard to freedom of expression and association. We reiterate our call on the Russian authorities to reverse these decisions and to stop the unabated crackdown on civil society and independent media”.

“The European Union stands in solidarity with Russian civil society, human rights defenders and independent journalists and will continue to support them in their important work”.

Russia supports Ryanair highjack

Blog, Europe, Human rights, International, Uncategorized

Brussels 24.05.2021 Anna van Densky OPINION The defence of Belarus President Lukashenko actions, which have been already defined by some of the EU politicians as “state terrorism”, indicated that Russia has been informed or, even engaged in this operation, which also can lead to a suggestion the the liberation of Protasevich and the other political prisoners in Belarus would be possible through an asymmetric answer. The extensive presence of Russians at French Riviera, purchasing luxury mansions and palaces could become an key to the liberation of all political prisoners in Belarus, just through questioning the sources of their wealth.

“There is no reason why Western countries should be shocked by the Ryanair flight incident, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Facebook on Monday, May 24, clearly defending the actions of Alexandar Lukashenko, who sent MiG29 jet to force civil aircraft landing with purpose of kidnapping the Belarus opposition journalist Roman Protasevich.

“What is shocking is that the West has described the incident in Belarusian airspace as shocking. The so-called civilised democracies’ tendency to follow the ‘quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi’ principle has long been irrelevant because the former leaders have lost leadership skills. The blood and suffering of millions of people across the world have yanked the pedestal from under Western demagogues, from where they have been preaching,” Zakharova has underlined.

“Or, they should be shocked by everything, including the moves to force down the Bolivian president’s plane in Austria at the United States’ request and the Belarusian aircraft carrying an anti-Maidan activist. Otherwise, such behavior should not come as a shock to them,” the Russian diplomat emphasized.

During Ryanair flight to Vilnius that took off from Athens was forced to make an emergency landing at Minsk International Airport on Sunday, May 23, after a reported bomb threat, which came up empty. The Belarusian Investigative Committee has launched a criminal case into the false bomb threat. Minsk’s federal authorities specified that Roman Protasevich, wanted in Belarus as a co-founder of the Nexta Telegram channel deemed extremist, had been among the flight’s passengers. He was detained by law enforcement officers, media reports said.

A joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, and the French Le Monde revealed the extent to which one of Russia’s most infamous oligarchs — Putin’s childhood friend Boris Rotenberg — is entrenched in the French Riviera. However he was not the only one. Would the EU show the political will for Protasevich liberation start questioning Russians wealth sources at French Riviera?

Bible-loving politician under trial

Blog, EU, Europe, Uncategorized

Brussels 09.05.2021 The trial against Finnish Christian politician Päivi Räsänen, accused of hate speech towards minorities for citing the Bible concerning gay people, is regarded as a new step in the intensifying persecution of Christians in Western democracies.

The trial i the first time when a politician with such a status is being prosecuted for expressing Christian doctrine concerning human sexuality.

Räsänen is the former head of the Finnish Christian Democrats and a former Minister of the interior. She is now serving a Member of the Parliament elected first time in 1995.

The police which conducted the initial investigation have underlined that Räsänen’s tweet from 2019 was not a reason to initiate action against her. The tweet had an attached photo of a Bible text which included a fragment of the Saint Epistle to the Romans:

Räsänen is a politician of a clear rhetoric, defending the Christian doctrine on sexuality and family. Yet, that was enough for the prosecution to impose two years of prison sentence regardless the freedom of belief.
This whole affair poses serious questions concerning freedom of the fundamental freedoms in the concept of a liberal democracy. It means that these freedoms are increasingly more threatened, especially concerning the Christianity.

Turkey in EURONEWS: qui prodest?

Blog, Conflict, EU, International, Uncategorized

Brussels, 06.11.2020 Anna van Densky OPINION The strangling of Freedom of speech policy of increasingly authoritarian Turkey at home, in the European Union and across globe, preventing 400 million audience of the EURONEWS to receive an objective coverage of the events concerning Ankara actions, is paradoxically rooted in the EU public funds being abused by Turkish government and used for the purpose, opposite to its original concept.
Unfortunately, the European Commission continues to subsidise EURONEWS TV Channel in spite of the fact that Turkey is in all structures, aggressively opposing and blocking the adequate news coverage.

Even previously, in the 2019 report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has underlined that EURONEWS is “not a public service broadcaster in any member state”, and analysing a total of €122M of funding for the channel from 2014-2018, concluded that the Commission “does not have a system to verify whether EURONEWS is achieving the objectives agreed in the partnership agreements.”
Today the European Commission has confirmed the continuation of subsidising Euronews TV, regardless Ankara opposition of freedom of speech – core value of the EU, and the fact of incarceration of more than 200 Turkish journalists.
Apparently, following the answer of the European Commission spokesperson they had no mechanism foreseen to freeze the payments.

Needless to say, that being in EURONEWS editorial Turkish broadcaster TRT uses their right to veto all the unflattering information about their country, preventing the global audiences to access to the information of tremendous significance, alerting public about Turkish actions alike supporting Muslim Brotherhood, defined a terrorist organisation by the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Not least crucial is information of transfer of 2 000 jihad fighters from Syria to Nagorno-Karabakh by Turkey, reported by some media, but denied by Ankara. However at present it is impossible to deliver objective coverage of conflict taking place in Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan in spite of the generous subvention to EURONEWS, because Turkish editorial is there to block it.

On top of using the channel to condemn the freedom of speech policy of the EU member-states in the articles of the Turkish editorial, Ankara earns from EURONEWS, being a shareholder, while the EU citizens pay tens of millions yearly to ensure the channel function, they supply profit to Turkish oppressive state which cashes on TV advertising.

Obviously when in February 2009, the Turkish public broadcaster TRT became a shareholder of the channel and joined its supervisory board, the context was different, and there were no major objection for Ankara to joint the team. The same year the TRT purchased 15.70% of the channel’s shares and became the fourth main partner after France Télévisions (23.93%), RAI (21.54%), and VGTRK (16.94%). Turkish was added as the ninth language service in January 2010 as a result of this purchase.

The EURONEWS TV channel was established in 1993 by ten European public broadcasters to “reinforce European identity and integration” and the EU has provided it with a generous financial support since then. In recent years, the channel has changed its ownership structure by acquiring private investors.

Continue reading “Turkey in EURONEWS: qui prodest?” →

#YellowVests: reporter Gaspard Glanz handcuffed

Blog, EU, Europe, Human rights

Anna van Densky: According to reports from Paris reporter Gaspard Glanz has been handcuffed. Arrests have multiplied, also a journalist from French newspaper Le Figaro has been taken to custody by an agent of anti-riot police during 23 week of protests of Yellow Vests named Acte XXIII. The Vth Republic under Macron‘s leadership swiftly degenerates into Banana Republic, using police batons to oppress wide-spread public discontent. Citizens with shot off eyes, ripped off limbs, and reporters handcuffed – is that European “Renaissance” Macron’s party “En Marche” is marching to?..

“I adore to inhale the smell of tear gas in the morning“, wrote Gaspar Glanz on his Twitter micro blog page. “Ideals are peaceful history is violent” is the second line, defining his vision.

“One tries to prevent independent journalists by fear. The censorship of absence on spot” Gaspard Glanz writes, explaining governments’s policy towards independent press, covering Yellow Vests protests against Macron‘s presidency.