I will try to answer this question from a general standpoint without addressing the two specific cases linked above. This is just my personal theory by the way.

I tend to think of international politics and politics in general from an evolutionary perspective. If countries in the West play by the democracy book so to speak and do not use all the arsenal that their enemy uses (in this case the banning of foreign media) then they simply are at an survival disadvantage. In the eyes of evolution there are no good or bad actions, there are simply actions that are useful or not so useful. Those that take actions that are more useful to their survival will pass on the traits that lead to these actions to the next generation.

Likewise, if Western democracies refuse to take certain advantageous actions due to a supposedly superior moral posture they will be in a decided disadvantaged position. Hence, in reality, they do use all the possible arsenal that they can use.

Seen from this particular perspective the basic difference in the democratic vs autocratic system would be that the latter is more honest, while the former has to involve a certain degree of hypocrisy, since some of its actions must necessarily counter some of its principles.

That is the underlying sentiment. As to how they justify it, it doesn't really matter so much, as it is just a reason post-factum.

Finally, it is worth adding that countries such as Russia and China claim to be democratic systems. Yet they (rather obviously) aren't. Some people will argue the same for the US. The democracy index is perhaps a good metric here.

I will try to answer this question from a general standpoint without addressing the two specific cases linked above. This is just my personal theory by the way.

I tend to think of international politics and politics in general from an evolutionary perspective. If countries in the West play by the democracy book so to speak and do not use all the arsenal that their enemy uses (in this case the banning of foreign media) then they simply are at an survival disadvantage. In the eyes of evolution there are no good or bad actions, there are simply actions that are useful or not so useful. Those that take actions that are more useful to their survival will pass on the traits that lead to these actions to the next generation.

Likewise, if Western democracies refuse to take certain advantageous actions due to a supposedly superior moral posture they will be in a decided disadvantaged position. Hence, in reality, they do use all the possible arsenal that they can use.

Seen from this particular perspective the basic difference of the democratic vs autocratic system would be that the latter is more honest, while the former has to involve a certain degree of hypocrisy, since some of its actions must necessarily counter some of its principles.

That is the underlying sentiment. As to how they justify it, it doesn't really matter so much, as it is just a reason post-factum.

Finally, it is worth adding that countries such as Russia and China claim to be democratic systems. Yet they (rather obviously) aren't. Some people will argue the same for the US. The democracy index is perhaps a good metric here.