That’s a staggering sum for controlling what information the public can access. And their treatment of German journalist Huseyin Dogru below is a severe violation of his rights. Worth noting, in the beginning of the war they persecuted Southfront, which had to relocate their server and change their domain name, as they put out some great news articles about the war being labeled Russian propaganda even though they’re reader supported through donations. And we might think we’re protected in the US, but they’re working towards doing the same thing. Consequently, this is a great reason to make sure you have some wealth stored away in cryptocurrency self-custody, so if you’re cut off from banking you can use some cryptocurrency to live, especially if in Europe. This doesn’t include anything centrally controlled like stablecoins where they can cut you off from funds the just like with banks.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2026-10-22-eu-allocates-736m-for-online-censorship-programs.html
By Belle Carter
- The European Union has allocated $736 million for online censorship programs and is expanding its ability to punish journalists and citizens for speech deemed objectionable, often without judicial oversight.
- German journalist Huseyin Dogru became the first European citizen sanctioned under the EU’s regime for allegedly spreading Russian propaganda, resulting in a “civil death” where he is restricted to a €506 ($567) monthly allowance and cannot hold a job or bank account.
- The Council of the European Union defended its power to punish individuals without criminal proceedings, arguing sanctions are “not criminal in nature” and that freedom of expression only applies to journalists acting “in good faith” with “reliable and precise” information.
- Broader European hate speech laws are being used to silence dissent, with examples including German authorities raiding an activist’s home, fining people for insulting speech, and a Green Party proposal for neighbors to report each other.
- Free speech advocates call for raising awareness, warning that the EU’s measures are part of a global trend of censorship that threatens personal liberty and democratic discourse.
The European Union has allocated $736 million for online censorship programs while simultaneously expanding its power to punish journalists and citizens for speech deemed objectionable – often without judicial oversight, court hearings or the right to face accusers, according to documents and interviews reviewed by Natural News.
At the center of the controversy is German journalist Huseyin Dogru, who became the first European citizen on European soil to be sanctioned under the EU’s sanctions regime. The 21 people blacklisted last year for allegedly spreading Russian propaganda have been banned from doing business in Europe, holding jobs or maintaining bank accounts. Dogru, a Berlin-based journalist, was falsely listed as a Turkish citizen living in Istanbul.
“This is not just about one journalist,” said Dogru in an interview with American journalist Chris Hedges. “People need to understand sanctions are an extrajudicial measure. They’re extrajudicial. There’s no court. There is no hearing, no evidence, there is no sentence by the court, nothing.”
The sanctions have effectively restricted Dogru to a €506 ($567) monthly allowance from his own money, a situation he described as “civil death.”
EU claims “extrajudicial” powers over speech
The Council of the European Union, in a legal letter shared by Dogru, defended its authority to punish individuals for their speech without criminal proceedings. The council argued that sanctions “are temporary and are not criminal in nature,” meaning targets have fewer rights than criminal suspects.
“Any complaint about a ‘violation of the presumption of innocence is therefore unfounded,'” the council wrote in response to Dogru’s lawyers, who had insisted he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
The council further cited a 2022 court case involving Russian news outlet RT to argue that freedom of expression protections apply only to journalists “acting in good faith” and providing “reliable and precise” information.
Dogru, who previously worked at the Russian-funded publication Redfish, split off in 2022 to create red.media, insisting the new outlet had no Russian funding. Despite his denials and his characterization of Russia as an “imperialist” regime, the EU blacklisted him in June 2025, weeks after he shut down the website.
“The day when I was sanctioned, me and my wife, my wife was pregnant back then, we went to the pharmacy to buy medicine for her, and her cards did not work,” Dogru told Hedges.
Broader crackdown on online speech emerges
The sanctioning of Dogru comes amid a broader expansion of European hate speech laws that critics say are being used to silence political dissent rather than protect minorities.
In Germany, authorities have raided the home of an activist who posted critical comments on a politician’s Facebook page. An anonymous Twitter user who called a journalist “stupid” was unmasked and fined €1,000. Another individual was fined €10,000 for insulting Turkish immigrants.
The German Green Party has proposed establishing reporting centers where neighbors can report each other for offensive speech. A task force in Göttingen already maintains files containing printouts of German citizens’ social media posts.
Despite the fall of the Stasi secret police three decades ago, surveillance and harassment based on speech continue under the guise of political correctness, free speech advocates argue.
Historical context and constitutional differences
The European approach stands in stark contrast to U.S. constitutional protections. As BrightU.AI‘s Enoch explains, the First Amendment broadly protects offensive, controversial and even false speech – a standard European courts have rejected.
Earlier this year, the Curia of the European Union ruled that simply reposting clips from Russian media could violate EU sanctions, even when no money changes hands. Such activity is explicitly exempted from U.S. sanctions under the Berman Amendment.
U.S. authorities have nonetheless attempted similar measures. The Biden administration told one American nonprofit that providing a platform for sanctioned individuals to speak was illegal, though it backed down after the nonprofit sued.
The Trump administration sanctioned Italian academic Francesca Albanese for calling for prosecution of Israeli leaders and boycotts of Israeli industries. The sanctions forced Columbia University researchers to sever their relationship with Albanese and Georgetown University to close her email account.
“The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior,” the Biden administration insisted in a statement announcing sanctions on Russian news agencies.
Free speech advocates call for awareness
Civil libertarians warn that the public remains largely unaware of the scope of these measures. The Wau Holland Foundation has hired lawyers to contest the sanctions against Dogru, arguing they violate fundamental European rights.
“As academic professionals and advocates for free speech, it is our responsibility to raise awareness about these issues and to push for a more balanced and just approach to online speech regulation,” said one free speech advocate who requested anonymity due to fear of reprisal.
The EU’s $736 million allocation for online censorship programs suggests these measures will continue to expand, with authorities framing them as necessary tools against disinformation and hate speech even as critics say they are used to protect those in power from criticism.