Democracy’s Tipping Point: When Does Media Regulation Become Control?

Aisling Doherty

When we look at many of the most notorious authoritarian states in history, their seizing of power happens gradually.  Arguably, however, the point when the line is crossed into the territory of ‘authoritarianism’ occurs when the media is restricted by undue legal regulations.  The restriction of press freedom by oppressive legislation often marks the beginning of democracy’s decline.  In this article, I will explore the importance of press freedom and the pattern of excessive legal regulation in two of the most atrocious dictatorships. 

The word media is defined as ‘the main means of mass communication’.  The freedom of the media and press is a fundamental principle of democracy, so much so that it has been codified as a human right, such as in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  These freedoms ensure that people are kept informed of the events in the world around them and legitimises the democratic process by informing voters about their candidates.  Furthermore, the press acts as a ‘watchdog’ over those in power, and holds them accountable to their citizens.  These rights are essential for the functioning of a democratic state, allowing people the right to make up their own mind and choose between different news sources. 

In 2025, the organization Reporters Without Borders reported that 67 media professionals have been killed over the past year.  There are also currently 503 reporters detained worldwide at the moment, and over 135 missing.   These figures show the continuing relevance of the issue of press freedom today, and by looking at historical precedents we can identify the warning signs of democratic decline. 

Nazi Germany is one of the starkest examples of when excessive legal controls on the media marked democracy’s end within a state.  In October 1933, months after Hitler came into power, the Nazi regime introduced the ‘Schriftleitergesetz’ (The Editors’ Law).  At this time, the Nazis controlled less than 3% of Germany’s 4700 papers.  The Editors’ Law brought all journalists under the control of the Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels.  Anyone who worked for the press was now accountable to the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, instead of to independent publishers.  It also required that any journalists or editors be registered on a special roster, for which an ‘Aryan Certificate’ was required.  In controlling information at its source, the Nazi regime was able to indoctrinate the public with its ideals, as they had no access to unbiased sources.  By 1944, only 1100 of the 4700 papers remained.    

The Nazi regime was not the only authoritarian government that understood the importance of the press and how legislating over the media can grant those in power total control.  Stalin’s Russia followed a similar pattern of excessive legal regulation of the media to push his dictatorial regime, and sustained these legal controls for decades, from 1917 until the 1980s.  In 1917, a decree of the press was signed, which imposed restrictions on independent press, and called for the closure of any press agencies which promoted resistance to the government.  It also created a branch of government, called ‘Glavlit’, which was responsible for enforcing censorship of the media, including newspapers, pamphlets and literature.  Only certain approved institutions under the strict control of the government could publish media.  The fate of those who did was severe.  During the Great Purges between 1935 to 1938, over 600 writers vanished. 

These historical regimes demonstrate how legal regulation of the media can be weaponised by governments to control public knowledge and silence dissent.  While these examples may seem distant, they are still worryingly relevant today, especially in the context of the situation in Palestine.  Although the mechanisms of media regulation may look different today, with the growth of social media, the aim of placing controls on what information people may or may not access is still prevalent. 

From October to November of 2023, there were reports of over 1,050 content takedowns on Meta in relation to the conflict.  300 of these cases have reported being unable to appeal the ban, which places restrictions on the accessibility of an effective remedy. 

There are also numerous reports of users on social media platforms such as Instagram and X, noticing a steep decline in engagement with their posts about Palestine.  This is a process called shadow banning, whereby social media companies can reduce the visibility of certain accounts without notifying the owner.  While there are circumstances where this is necessary to enforce company policies, the removal of peaceful content educating people about the crisis in Palestine limits access to certain viewpoints and is detrimental to allowing people to formulate opinions from the media they consume. 

Ultimately, these examples demonstrate that threats to press freedom do not always come in the form of overt censorship or violence. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, democracy was eroded through legal frameworks that determined who could publish, what could be said and which voices were silenced. Today, while control over information can be exercised through platform policies instead, the effects are similar. When peaceful content is removed, visibility is reduced without explanation and access to information becomes increasingly restricted. History shows that once such controls over the media become normalised, democratic decline is rarely far behind. Protecting press freedom, whether from governments or powerful digital platforms, remains essential to preserving individual thought and democratic accountability.