In time of peace, value of human life is infinite, thus fredom of someone ends where freedom of somewhere else starts. Nobody can cut basic freedoms of someone else without court decision.

In time of war, this freedom creates vulnerability, so modern democraties have utalitarian laws designed to maximise survivability of nation as whole instead. It's not so important for behemoths, but it's essential for smaller countries. However, even in large and powerful democraties there are loopholes around basic freedoms for desperate times, such as natural disaster, or assault, or war, etc.

For example, it's not allowed to shut somebody else, except when defending or to save life of someone else. It's not allowed to force somebody else to keep silence, except when it puts lifes of others in danger, such as hate speech, or division by race, color of skin, nationality, religion, income, etc.

Russian outlets are doing just that. They are trying to portrait other nations as evils. They are telling to Ukrainians that Jews are rulling our country (half truth, many politics in Ukraine are Jews), then they tell to Jews that Ukrainians are Nazi, to induce fighting between nationalities, to start civil war.

This creates danger for everybody, so we cried for years to shut down Russian propaganda. Nobody listened to us until today.

Ideally, any limitation of freedom is there to actually guarantee freedom, e.g. your freedom is limited in the form of an obligation to come to a police station to submit an explanation, but thanks to that the police can protect people from those that would otherwise limit their freedoms.

In similar vein, freedom of speech has to be limited, when some propaganda could lead to the decrease of the freedom.

It is tricky of course to judge what limitations are justified, but I find the sanctions against russian news sources on the quite safe side.