But they're not closing the websites - they're preventing people in the UK from accessing them.

To work with your analogy - this is like intercepting a shipment of newspapers, and blacking out any ads placed in them by criminals. Regardless of what the ads say - they're criminals, why should they be entitled to say "I'm innocent"?

Sorry - why should they be entitled to printing press amplify their voice. They can just scream in their cells - their free speech isn't being curtailed.

Who knows, maybe it is too dangerous to let them speak - but at least have the honesty to call it what it is - censorship.

It's like banning anyone in the UK ordering things from the Maffia in Italy, and it happens that one of the businesses the Maffia operates is a newspaper, so you're banned from importing it. Being a publisher isn't an end run around the rest of the law.

> ordering [..] importing [..]

So block financial transactions with the sanctioned entities - problem solved. Unless your real intent isn't blocking money, but speech.

These people profit from the operation of these sites, or many of them anyway, that’s what is being targeted. Even in the case of a publishing site advertising revenue due to page impressions is a legitimate target.

What on earth makes you think "designated individuals" are criminals? They aren't being prosecuted, they haven't been found guilty in any court of law. They've just been blacklisted by some random civil servants and politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. Not much different to the US no fly lists.

Honestly that’s a separate issue, I don’t know about the legality of this, I’m just pointing out this is nothing to do with censorship.