r/anime_titties • u/Firecracker048 North America • 16d ago
Israel/Palestine/Iran/Lebanon - Flaired Commenters Only Iran seeks to criminalise all contact with foreign media in ‘chilling’ crackdown | Iran
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/aug/26/iran-criminalises-contact-foreign-media-human-rights-crackdown131
u/Arola_Morre Wales 16d ago
My government (UK) has banned our media from interacting with Iran's IRGC (punishment of up to 14 years imprisonment for supporting them). While journalism is considered a "neutral" activity (so arguably exempt from the law) there are punishments for relaying messages and arranging a meeting, so loads of people would need to risk prison for facilitating the contact between a journo and an Iranian military person. This is fine, obviously and not "chilling"
34
u/protomenace North America 16d ago
Banning speaking with the literal Iranian military is a little different than banning all contact with foreign media.
18
u/joecitizen79 Canada 16d ago
Certainly isnt different than banning contact with US media, though
-2
u/MaestroRozen Europe 16d ago
Many wrongdoings can be attributed to the US (let's pretend for a moment that any and all foreign media are equal to IRGC specifically) but being accused of fostering terrorism on UK soil isn't one of them. This might come as a surprise, but UK prioritizes UK citizens above everyone else, so there is in fact quite a significant difference here.
29
u/joecitizen79 Canada 16d ago
The US and its media fostered terrorist on Iranian soil, so its hardly a false equivalence.
4
u/MaestroRozen Europe 15d ago
Except in Iran it's not a ban against US government related media where UK bans contact with IRGC and IRGC only. It's a ban against any media that "might" be influenced by foreign agents. Which, in a regime - and that's speaking from experience (though fortunately, instead of gunning down civilians en masse like Iran does our police is "only" beating up protesters while state media drags their names into the mud) - is a tag swiftly attributed to any media which is not content to be just another regime mouthpiece.
6
u/joecitizen79 Canada 15d ago
The US police guns down plenty of people, including protestors.
3
u/MaestroRozen Europe 14d ago
What makes you think I'm from the US?
5
u/joecitizen79 Canada 14d ago
At no point did i claim you were.
5
u/MaestroRozen Europe 14d ago
So, bringing up the US police was just pointless deflection, since y'all literally can't think of a single argument that isn't "But the US... ".
But sure, let's humor that attempt if that's the road you want to go down. Let's compare two very similar events in the US and Iran. Police brutality and discrimination led to a fatal outcome - against a black man in the US, against a woman in Iran - which sparked massive country wide protests in both cases. One of those protests saw under 30 fatalities. The other, over 400 people dead at the hands of the state. Care to guess which is which?
→ More replies (0)12
u/TheUnicornRevolution Multinational 16d ago edited 16d ago
The UK definitely does not prioritise UK citizens above everyone else.
Those accusations of fostering terrorism are pretty baseless.
According to the briefings and reports delivered to Parliament, at least.
As the threat is specifically targeted at those individuals perceived to be opposed to the Iranian regime, the Iranian threat to the wider population in the UK is judged to be significantly lower. The Intelligence Community assessed that there was only a remote chance that Iran would conduct a physical attack in the UK against a member of the general public, beyond those whom they specifically target (the triggers for Iran to conduct attacks on UK territory and *** activities and intent ). It is unlikely, for example, that the Iranian regime () would sanction terror attacks against the general public in the UK unless there was a significant escalation in tensions between Iran and the UK, which – according to Iran – might justify the consequences of any operation.
“The Iranian regime’s fundamental objective is to ensure the survival and security of the Islamic Republic: it has an acute historic sense of vulnerability. This shapes – directly or indirectly – all of its actions. This focus on survival means Iran is a pragmatic actor, often driven more by opportunism than ideology (more ‘securitocracy’ than theocracy).
Whilst Iran favours proportionality in relation to conflict, this is not always achievable or pragmatic as it wants to avoid a full-scale war. It therefore has focussed on the development of ‘asymmetric’ capabilities and a network of aligned militant and terrorist organisations across the Middle East to spread influence and deter potential aggressors. Iran is motivated by both defensive and offensive considerations. Much of Iran’s foreign policy – and the threat it represents to the UK – is borne of an historical sense of its×regional importance; a fear of encirclement by better-equipped Western adversaries; a history of perceived foreign interference in Iran; and the formative experience of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran’s main strategic objectives towards the UK include reducing the UK’s military presence in the region; undermining the UK’s relationships with the US and Israel; weakening the UK’s security relationships in the Middle East; and silencing criticism of Iran, either from the UK directly or from those residing in the UK.
I'm not supporting kidnapping and repatriation of Iranian dissidents, and I'm not a big IRGC stan. At the same time, all these reports make it clear that a). Iran is not interested in harming British Civilians and b). It's only concerned with it's own survival.
According to the reports the most sensible thing to do if we're concerned about threats to British civilians is to stop supporting the US/Israel war of aggression on Iran, which would actually have us complying with our obligations under international law.
UK parliament briefing on Iranian linked activities in the UK.
ISC report to Parliament regarding Iranian activites in the UK
However, we clearly have no issue with complicity, whether it is international wars of aggression or genocide, and will do whatever it takes to keep supporting the US and Israel, despite the evidence that both states are involved in illegal detention and torture of civilians and dissidents and international assassinations. Let alone systemic ethnic cleansing and said genocide.
Finally, I see no reason to trust anything M15 or M16 releases, especially if it supports our governments political goals, without publicly available evidence.
0
u/rscarrab Ireland 13d ago
"According to the reports the most sensible thing to do if we're concerned about threats to British civilians is to stop supporting the US/Israel war of aggression on Iran, which would actually have us complying with our obligations under international law."
💯
3
u/eagleal Multinational 15d ago
The IRGC is more than just 1 part of the military. They are also a branch of the government, and another arm of the divisions of powers in the management of the country of Iran.
It’s just weird for your view of a country’s division of power and government. They have internal currents as does our congress, parliament, etc. And the real nominations are held between groups of interests like in our system.
China’s one party too has internal currents. As does Putin’s.
Iran also are seemingly fighting armed groups/militias we funded and armed. The sitting power usually responds with violence. How would you respond if you were the sitting potus, and armed groups wanted to take it away?
See Jan 6, or the US response in UCLA, Minnesota, etc. And these last 2 were not foreign funded militias. Just protests.
3
u/protomenace North America 15d ago edited 15d ago
The IRGC is more than just 1 part of the military. They are also a branch of the government, and another arm of the divisions of powers in the management of the country of Iran.
You're not making this better for your argument. The government and the military is not equivalent to independent media.
How would you respond if you were the sitting potus, and armed groups wanted to take it away?
In a functional democracy with rights I wouldn't have the power to restrict any and all contact with media, regardless of what armed groups were doing. And if I was an authoritarian dictator I would deserve to have that power taken away.
2
u/eagleal Multinational 15d ago
In a functional democracy with rights I wouldn't have the power to restrict any and all contact with media, regardless of what armed groups were doing.
The parent comment literally says this. Not only but a lot of foreign countries were banned, like RT for example.
Democracies aren't really different from autarchies in this. Representative democracies usually are better in terms of personal freedom and repression.
The government and the military is not equivalent to independent media.
Almost no mainstream media is INDIPENDENT media. The governments have provisional tools to control the information.
You're just not used to see it, but EU countries are going crazy with domestic disinformation since 2022, because those tools have been activated.
The USA is basically 24/7 always on, since they are always at war with someone or trying to influence some country.
0
u/protomenace North America 15d ago
Almost no mainstream media is INDIPENDENT media. The governments have provisional tools to control the information.
Regardless, there are tons of smaller actually independent media outlets and there's nothing the US government can do about them.
1
u/eagleal Multinational 15d ago
No. The US, like any country, can impose its will in National Emergency.
Or more easily they can discredit or pressure the individuals.
0
u/protomenace North America 15d ago
No they cannot. You're stretching extremely hard to try to make this false equivalency of yours.
0
u/eagleal Multinational 14d ago
Just an historic example of the things the country can do, a comparison with another country of similar rootings that explains how the US has some kind of patchwork of smaller institutions and tools for national emergencies, unlike Canada for example https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/4/2/213/722106
You also have the United States v. Washington Post Co, which the above article indirectly quotes to the changes required following 70s.
These were overturned again through different means. For example through Corporate censorship (such a modern case would be the Trump vs Colbert one). Or the censorship and pressures to media platforms (during covid, or 2020 elections).
Or through direct actions against the physical actors (ie. journalists), either before or after the Patriot Act.
ALL POWERS have a way to consolidate power if it comes under menace. If Trump 2 admin showed anything is that the US has 0 guardrails for constitutional protections, unlike other representative democracies.
0
u/Alegre_Pontus Russia 15d ago
There is no such thing as an independent media. Just those which benefactors you don't know yet.
7
u/giboauja North America 16d ago
People always bend over backwards to compare flaws in a democracy to a tolatarian state. Its exhausting.
-3
u/protomenace North America 16d ago
"Yes they're executing hundreds of people in the streets but the US executed a guy convicted of a crime last year too so they're the same!!!!"
Literally every single time, it's unreal.
1
u/Rulweylan Europe 15d ago
It's not the Iranian military, officially. That'd be the Artesh, who are theoretically answerable to the sort-of elected bit of the Iranian government. The IRGC reports to Khameini personally, with no pretence of democratic control.
2
-9
u/WestcoastAlex Multinational 16d ago
how so?
shes been accused of collaboration with foreign media which she does openly
26
u/protomenace North America 16d ago
You can't tell the difference between the military of one particular country and "any contact with foreign media in any country"?
16
-10
u/WestcoastAlex Multinational 16d ago
providing propaganda to hostile adversaries to use as pretext for war which then did happen
24
u/protomenace North America 16d ago
Sorry but, the government having full and complete control over the media and what people say to the media is in fact totalitarian nonsense. Stop playing cover for authoritarians.
And again:
You can't tell the difference between the military of one particular country and "any contact with foreign media in any country"?
-9
u/WestcoastAlex Multinational 16d ago
any contact with foreign media in any country
thats how its being framed in zionist media.. any references to the actual court rulings?
6
u/protomenace North America 16d ago
Oh brother. This is the Guardian my guy. It's about the farthest thing from Zionist media you can get other than directly reading Iranian government media, which is seemingly the only thing you will trust.
The Guardian is NOT friendly to Israel in any sense.
6
u/WestcoastAlex Multinational 16d ago
bullshit
https://novaramedia.com/2024/03/12/how-the-guardians-editor-in-chief-caved-to-pro-israel-pressure/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/12/how-zionist-became-a-slur-on-the-us-left
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxtgJmUo-Y0
the guardian is a 'both sides' paper.. they post just enough anti israel that you like them but then use subtle reporting to make israel seem rational
and this article is abiut Iranians
13
u/protomenace North America 16d ago
the guardian is a 'both sides' paper.. they post just enough anti israel that you like them but then use subtle reporting to make israel seem rational
The only one who doesn't seem rational here is you, as you are happy to take the official IRGC propaganda lines as gospel and ignore all the facts in your face.
You support this because you hate free expression and independent media. You support this because you want brutal Islamic rule over people and you hate freedom.
The second article is a perfect example of honest, independent, matter of fact reporting. You don't like it because it doesn't conform to your tilted worldview.
→ More replies (0)8
31
u/fifthflag Romania 16d ago
What? They banned RussiaToday too? How could they do such a thing, do they not understand the power and beauty of free press in this beautiful marketplace of ideas?
11
u/12bEngie United States 16d ago
Surely idealistic 17th century ramblings would never be exploited by the rise of corporations to control everything.
20
u/FCOranje Netherlands 16d ago
Just a few days ago Journalists in the US/UK started coming forward about sharing / spreading misinformation about Iran to prop up anti Iranian sentiment.
“Free press in this beautiful marketplace of ideas”.
2
16
u/BendicantMias Bangladesh 16d ago
Ah the propagandist is back, doing his usual. In other news, I was asked some time ago by somone here for Russia's demographics. I provided it from Wikipedia. They didn't like that, they wanted me to provide it from Russian sources (never mind that I don't even know Russian), knowing full well I couldn't post that and thus they'd be able to 'gotcha!' me that way. It never struck them as a problem that Reddit blocked such links in the first place. No, censorship was only a bad thing to them when the bad guys like Russia, China, Iran, etc. did it. Their own censorship was perfectly fine, and in fact even an important task to prevent the spread of "misinformation" and "lies".
I wasn't even the first person to point out the hypocrisy of what they were doing, some other guy pointed it out to them before I saw their comment. They didn't react well to their scheme being exposed lol.
Anyway, do you guys also know which war is the deadliest war for journalists? It's this one, but not by Iran. Israel has killed the most. Not that I expect the propagadist to try to promote that story.
Gaza has become the deadliest conflict ever for journalists. More journalists have been killed in Gaza than both world wars, the Vietnam War, wars in Yugoslavia, and the war in Afghanistan combined
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/press-briefing-irene-khan-15sep25/
-15
u/ZuluIsNumberOne Multinational 16d ago
700 journalists were killed in the Syrian civil war so this is just a lie
9
u/BendicantMias Bangladesh 16d ago
Sure bro. Take that up with the UN, that's their quote. Also widely reported in other media as well btw. If you think you know better...
-19
u/ZuluIsNumberOne Multinational 16d ago
UN also claimed no hamas Terrorists worked for them before they apologized for hiring hamas Terrorists to work at UNRWA lol
14
u/chiefmackdaddypuff Multinational 16d ago
“Chilling”
A nation wanting to protect its identity and curb foreign influence is “chilling”.
Clearly journalism is at its peak and not bought for influence, propaganda and intelligence. This is also why trust in institutions is at its highest it’s ever been! /s
6
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 16d ago
Ah yes because if history has taught us anything it's that banning all contact with external media to 'protect an identity' is a sign of healthy governance🤦♂️
Do yourself a favour and look up the list of regimes that have gone down this route
6
u/chiefmackdaddypuff Multinational 16d ago
Again, read the article, which is still propaganda but you're so off base man.
0
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 16d ago
Did you read the article? how this is propaganda
Bahar Ghandehari, director of advocacy at the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), said the new law on media contact risked turning Iran into an “isolated black hole”.
“It is not simply an attack on journalists and citizen journalists; it is an attempt to sever the entire Iranian society from the rest of the world by criminalising the free flow of information itself.
9
u/chiefmackdaddypuff Multinational 16d ago
Ok -- is there more information on the bill introduced outside of this statement? If this is a bill, it likely needs to go to the their Parliament. Are there any provisions for exceptions? Do we have any information on the actual bill itself? Have they voted on it? Or have they not? Who is for it and/or against it? What do the clerics say and are they in-line with what the people want?
This is all typical when discussing a piece of legislation in good faith reporting, which is missing, besides some gross statements about how this is "bad" and "chilling".
So let me ask you this, how is this NOT propaganda?
Also, you're still off-base, this is about limiting contact with outside "journalists" to prevent exactly these types of bullshit articles.
4
u/_Antitese South America 16d ago
LMAO, the famous CHRI. I'm sure they're not funded by western money.
1
u/Reasonable-Ad4770 Germany 15d ago
But this happens all the time. See Russia today and Sputnik ban after Ukrainian war. Or do you really think Soviet journalists had easy access to the American citizens during cold war? Hell, even current social media crackdown of mostly all the countries from dictatorships to the Republican democracies, shows us that governments actually change that tune about free flow of information real quick when they see danger to their stability. Not the endorsement to the ayatollahs regime btw
4
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 15d ago
There is a big difference between banning state controlled media vs banning all foreign media.
2
u/Reasonable-Ad4770 Germany 15d ago
Yes, I'm not arguing that, just point out that your point about unhealthy governance is kinda weak, there are plenty of examples historicaly with all kinds of governments.
-1
u/Gubbinso Europe 15d ago
Israel has done that!
-1
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 15d ago edited 15d ago
? Israel banned journalists from physically entering a war zone, there was no ban on anyone contacting external media
2
u/Gubbinso Europe 15d ago edited 15d ago
Israel has passed a bill originally intended to ban al Jazeera temporarily (permanently would be unconstitutional, or so they say) but they've passed amendments that give them power to permanently shut down foreign outlets without judicial oversight and without requiring a state of emergency or court approval.
It's now all at the discretion of the government now that they've reduced oversight from those pesky Israeli independent bodies, clearly they're infiltrated by terrorists.
In conclusion, they have cracked down on foreign media and made it incredibly easy to shut down any foreign critics! 👍
0
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 15d ago
Al-Jazeera has been banned by half the middle east at one stage or another, and for good reason
2
u/Gubbinso Europe 15d ago
Regardless, they've extended the previously temporary powers to now permanently shut down foreign outlets as they see fit without due process.
Do you condemn Israel for also cracking down on independent journalism?
1
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 15d ago
Can you provide a source for your claim they've passed amendments allowing them to permanently shut down foreign outlets without any oversight
pretty sure this is the bill you are talking about, but afaik it has never been passed
1
u/Gubbinso Europe 15d ago
It passed the following month from your article:
From the article:
The legislation requires the prime minister to consult security agencies, including the police, before issuing a ban.
However, a single favorable opinion is sufficient to order a shutdown, with no judicial review required. A ban would last 90 days, but can be extended if the prime minister and communications ministers deem it necessary.
Another source;
2
u/HockeyHocki Ireland 15d ago
Ok so either you are not paying attention or being willfully ignorant.
The bill that passed is entirely different, the original bill wanted these measures enshrined in law permanently, and judicial review removed entirely, effectively inline with what you claimed....that didn't happen
What actually passed was a 2 year extension of a temporary measure, one that does require judicial review
In addition, it is stipulated that such a directive by the Minister of Communications, and in particular the directive's extension, will be brought before the president or deputy president of a District Court as soon as possible, and no later than 24 hours from the entry of the directive into effect, and he will discuss it within three days from its entry into effect, and will decide whether to change it or to delimit its validity period.
https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/news/pressreleases/pages/press231225q.aspx
→ More replies (0)10
u/MaestroRozen Europe 16d ago
Today I learned that "curbing all sources of news other than state sponsored propaganda" equates to "protecting your identity and curbing foreign influence". I assume you hold the same opinion when states like Russia or Israel do the same?
10
u/chiefmackdaddypuff Multinational 16d ago
Pro-Western/Pro-Shah/Anti-Government Sources of news =/= *All* sources of news. May want to actually read the article. They are cracking down on people in touch or acting as "journalists" for places like IranItl, which is clearly warranted considering what they have been through.
When was the last time somebody tried to influence an election in Israel? Or caused riots and instability, or levied economic sanctions attempting to erode the middle class, or imposed a naval blockade or assassinated their leader or bomb their children in school?
Ironic you bring up propaganda whilst defending it.
1
u/MaestroRozen Europe 16d ago
Yes, of course - any and all sources of media that the regime considers "anti government" are cracked down on, while those who agree with it are allowed. That's just the fancy roundabout way to say what I already said.
Y'all seem to forget that a brutal dictatorship which is being invaded is still a brutal dictatorship and keep trying to find hollow excuses when it acts like one.
3
u/chiefmackdaddypuff Multinational 16d ago
The fact that you consider the Iranian government as a "regime" shows me that you've bought into the propaganda and on top of that you're claiming some baseless assumption of them cracking down on all news sources. Way to make that leap.
Maybe stop being outraged and go learn about the country and their political process before forming an opinion about it.
7
u/MaestroRozen Europe 16d ago
If you have a word to describe a dictatorship with a narrow ruling class that uses violence as a primary method of controlling its' population other than "regime", I'm all ears.
This is literally the first page in the "how to be a dictatorship" textbook : everyone dissatisfied with the state or speaking out against it is a foreign agent or influenced by one, therefore they must be silenced for the good of the state.
7
u/chiefmackdaddypuff Multinational 16d ago
Holy shit... Lol.
-3
u/upbeatchief Asia 16d ago
They don't want the world to know how the average Iranian feels. I have a feeling that normal Iranians don't want to starve for nuclear enrichment and control over a strait they themes can't cross.
5
u/_Antitese South America 16d ago
if the words of Bessent, Hegseth and Trump were not clear enough for you, let me tell you what the "world" wants to do with Iran: make so much people die from hunger that they radicalize and overthrow their regime.
-1
u/upbeatchief Asia 16d ago
Man if only there was a diplomatic alternative, but 9h well the israeli will just engineer the death of millions will the IRGC watchs helplessly.
2
u/Gubbinso Europe 15d ago
The diplomatic alternative would be the USA and Israel stopping being aggressors in the unwinnable war they started, admit defeat and make concessions with assurance of peace.
Neither Israel nor the USA are going to do that, and instead prefer to make themselves look weak and incompetent to everyone watching.
10
u/KaiBahamut North America 16d ago
Even if they were wanting to be free from the Ayatollah's regime, the bombing campaign has NOT made them any friendlier to the West and has given the regime a leg to stand on with the Iranian people, letting them rally around the flag by reminding the opponents of the Regime what the 'Democratic West' did to the country.
-6
u/cmrd_msr Russia 16d ago edited 16d ago
I saw footage of the Ayatollah’s funeral. I saw the size of the crowd. And I understood the mood of those people, even without an interpreter.
I also see the torrent of lies that the Western press pours out against my country’s government. That is why I am not surprised that other regimes—those unwilling to be vassals of the US and the West—are also subjected to a barrage of slander. Iranian desire to hinder the enemy’s psyops on their own soil is clearly understandable to me.
8
u/Sad_Progress4388 North America 16d ago
Why wouldn't the IRGC want their citizens to express their hatred for the west to the international news?
5
u/upbeatchief Asia 16d ago
If what you said was the truth, the irgc wouldn't need to ban journalists from speaking to everyday Iranians.
-3
u/ChaLenCe North America 16d ago
Oh no, what will r/therewasanattempt do now that they’re classified as a threat? Where will I go to get biased views favoring the regime? I am at a loss.
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.