I presume North Korea does, but I don't actually know. These aren't designed to be leading questions. I don't know the answers, and rather than searching, I figured someone else here might know offhand.
Not many countries enshrine press freedom as a constitutional right. US can't directly shut down news agencies by law but there are other less direct ways to restrict their ability to operate (like not granting visas). The US has all sorts of fringe news outlets, including some run by cults like Falun Gong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television )
Europe likes to claim they support press freedom but they banned RT in many countries. Looking at the press freedom index my kneejerk is to rank a lot of their countries lower, but then I remembered there's a habit of suing or disappearing journalists in the US that probe into larger corps.
As for Russia/DPRK/China, laws heavily restrict reporting. These are all way worse than Israel's current restrictions. DPRK has fully centralized mass media, so any other reporting inside is illegal by default without explicit approval of the state. China and Russia I think allows some reporting, basically anything appearing critical of nations of China or Russia can get you jailed/killed.
Source?
Again, source?
How heavily has RT been censored in the USA? Has the government ever censored it or pressured others to censor it, or is it just that links/rebroadcasts have been dropped by private entities of their own volition?
It hasn't been. Probably more accurate to state that when it was carried on cable media they broadcast a bowdlerized version. Al Jazeera did the same thing when it was carried by cable/satellite in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_America
This was the RT channel you're probably thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America
Really?
I am a long way away, but I thought the constitution prevented that
All countries are on a spectrum, there is no clear line between shiny democracy and brutal dictatorship. They all have institutions that look similar on the surface. A democracy is not going to stop having a police force just because some police states also have one, for example.
So yes, some democracies ban some media spreading propaganda for foreign interests, but the details matter.
Ukraine has shut down everything but the state-sponsored television.
Russia has shut down most independent media since the beginning of the war as well.
But admittedly, they are in a war of (dis)information so might not be representative of the freedom of the press.
Russia is certainly jailing journalists. As example, Evan Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter, is currently imprisoned: https://www.wsj.com/news/evan-gershkovich.
Nowadays, every country has an interest in preventing foreign influence operations across traditional and social media
It is also famously killing them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_i...
Also the United Kingdom has added several of it's own citizens to sanctions lists for journalism within Ukraine/Russia.
Also, this measure is temporary, only lasting 45 days.
It is likely more countries will follow. India trail blazed by banning TikTok almost 4 years ago after the border skirmish with China
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/1ckte1k/...
There were attempts at banning it before the war, so probably not the only reason but it does seem to be why the push to ban it reemerged again.
Note, too, the difference between the app being banned and the source being banned. TikTok.com will continue to resolve even if they remain under Chinese control.
Then again I could be wrong and the U.S government just doesn't like people people dancing, hard to tell which one is the reason behind it all.
The administration has been threatening tiktok for two Presidental terms, but it wasn't until pro-Palestinian tiktok content had "more reach than the top 10 US news sites, combined" that they've taken broad bipartisan action.
I've personally experienced the propaganda that US mainstream media doles out, I know it's real; in my mind this smacks of leaders reacting in fear to the erosion of control over what the American people can know about what's happening in the war. This lines up exactly with Israel's muting of Al Jazzera.
Pretty amusing to watch sibling's link of Mitt Romney and the interviewer haltingly say "narrative" in hushed tones, like they know it's some kind of dirty word.
The thing with propaganda is that it needs to have parts rooted in truth in order to be effective outside total information control; I consider the ability to consume everyone's propaganda an essential tool in distilling the most truth possible in a world where media and leadership across the world are openly concerned with the breakdown of their PR (read propaganda).
The best they can aim for is trying to create a narrative that at least somewhat aligns with the reality that is impossible to fully hide now.
The medium is the message...
If Israel could force the sale of Al Jazeera to Israeli businesses I'm sure it's content would become far more acceptable to the Israeli government.
Also, the law could be changed or overruled in the next year. Don't count chickens before eggs hatch?