of decency and progress, but chemo said all he ever wanted was to serve his country well. and that when it comes to its legacy, just like his parents, he will let history decide to be. in the 3rd, his family has been at the forefront of the fight for democracy at almost every political turning point in the history of the philippines. in one of his most remembered speeches as president before the step down, he reminded everyone that even they were trying to the filipinos is we're fighting for logan 0 manila. ah, this is all just, these are the top stories around 50 people are missing after part of an apartment block left in the state of florida. at least one person died when a section of the building funds to the ground near miami beach. 35 people have been

rescued, cutting my dad has more from south side in miami. we don't know yet what, what the causes that's still being investigated and the priority right now is on the search and rescue efforts. and i mean, this is, it's obviously shocking when you think about this. this isn't something that you expect to happen in the u. s. and that you don't see happening all the time. it people here, i just absolutely shocked. there was a similar collapse at a building in 2018 where about a dozen people passed away. and we are expecting the death toll here to rise and indigenous grouping. canada says it's discovered $751.00 unmarked graves at the sight of a former catholic, one residential school in saskatchewan province. last month remains of $215.00 children were found in british columbia. if his military denies it hit a busy market and figure i in air strike,

but it doesn't mit targeting to grow rebels fighters in the area out, official say the strike killed at least 50 civilians. the u. s. and the u. n. fed day want a full investigation, rushes warned the u. k, it'll target any foreign warships. testing is territorial claims in waters of crimea and follows a tens confrontation in the black sea. on wednesday, she has a british warship entered its territorial waters. british prime minister bobby johnson says the u. k. doesn't recognize russia's annexation of tri mia, and was pursuing freedom of navigation in international waters. for testers in thailand are back on the streets after a 6 month break because of the corporate 1900 pandemic demonstrators in bangkok, demanding the resignation of the prime minister and an overhaul of the constitution . former philippine president been in your keno has died of renal failure as a result of diabetes at the age of 61. and you know, served one time from 2010 to 2016 and those are the headlines. these

continues and i'll do it after inside story, goodbye. ah, ah, ah, ah, access denied the u. s. these is media websites linked to iran that ron calls it a breach of press freedom. so why is it happening now? and could it set a dangerous precedent for global censorship? this is inside storage. ah

hello and welcome to the program. i'm hammer, jim john, like many nations, iran has media outlets broadcasting, news to the world through that countries perspective. but the united states has accused ron of using them to spread misinformation. the us justice department seized 33 sites linked to iran, state media, such as the english language press t v and a channel used by humans her with the rebels. it also blocked 3 websites, operated bike type has bhalla and iranian back group in iraq. but some of the pages were soon back online under a different web address. to ron accused washington of double standards in as well me on the con john the what the us did to iranian websites was a breach of all principles of freedom of speech, which the united states is proud of. they restricted freedom of speech. we condemn this measure. we will use all our legal and international means to counter this wrong policy of the united states. it is not a constructive move at

a time when nuclear talks are underway in vienna. the seizures are happening at a sensitive time between the 2 nations. iran had just elected a new president. abraham racy, has already ruled out meeting president joe biden. and in vienna, diplomats from the u. s. europe, china, russia. andy ron have held 6 rounds of talks to revive the 2015 nuclear deal. negotiators say they're close to a breakthrough. ah, all right, let's bring our guests into iran homage. musashi is professor of political science at ron university in washington, dc. courtney ranch is a contributor at tech policy press and in birmingham scott lucas is an american professor of international politics at university of birmingham. a warm welcome to you all had let me start with you today. the seizures they've come at a really critical and delicate time a time when us and iranian officials are trying to revive the 2015 nuclear deal.

how strange is the timing of this to you and do you believe that it has the possibility to derail the negotiations? i mean, it's definitely not a good sign. it doesn't show any good well by the americans. also, it's interesting to note that prestige had been reporting very critically of the negotiations in the past month. in fact, the very same day that it was, sees it broke in exclusive news story with sources close to the negotiations saying that the american team was not very flexible in the talks that had been doing so repeatedly in the past month. so i think the fact that it was, sees during this very sensitive time might actually complicate the process of reaching the deal between iran and the us. scott, from your vantage point, what do you think about the timing? i mean, is this strange and also what does the u. s. gain by doing this right now?

could it be seen simply as a political tool to have more leverage in the negotiations going forward? i don't think there's a direct connection between the, by the ministrations tactics and the seizures. i think it might sound a bit strange, but you have to traps in american policy. you have the policy right now, which of course is, is to go into the nuclear talks and be and what you're very close to resolution according to the audience, including your offering entry to the deal, lifting of american sanctions. and iran returned to compliance. on the other hand, you've got a tracking american policy, which has been there for years and was wrapped up by the tropic ministration, which is imposing sanctions. and those sanctions include, for example, pressure on any iranian entity which is using us service or us out. we just want the internet domains are. and so i think the treasury, in this case, simply was pursuing its own bureaucratic path. last october, it seized almost

a 100 sites, went to ron's revolutionary guards, and they simply moved up and down on their bureaucratic paths that ok, now we're going to take sites linked to what they call disapprobation. whether it be iranian state outlet states, to tease or to allies such as iraq sought to hospital law. that said, i agree with professor most of the it's counterproductive, it's counterproductive because it doesn't deal with any issues that aren't there in the nuclear talks. i think in fact, it could undermine them. it doesn't deal with regional issues and it doesn't deal with their real issues that are there about iranian politics in the sense. for example, whether you talk about it runs own censorship of websites, the engineering of the presidential election last week, or indeed as detention for wrong in journalist courtney in the realm of information warfare. how significant is it? what the u. s. has done here with the seizures and from your perspective, there's this set

a new and more dangerous precedent when it comes to global censorship. well, i think this is the latest salvo in the information warfare that's been happening around the world of states are seeing new ways to exert their foreign policy priorities through internet governance. and what we're seeing is what the seizure of the domain name system. you know, these websites that they're in the u. s. is trying to convey its power and its foreign policy priorities. but i think that one of the things that we should also be thinking about is the fact that these, you know, so called news websites or propaganda websites. we're aiming at providing information related to the nuclear talks. and the u. s. is not only concerned about iran, it's also concerned about domestic perception of engagement with iran and about re entering the nuclear deal. so i think it might be a little bit more complex. we don't know whether these are separate trucks or whether they're related. but in terms of censorship, we should, i think,

be concerned when these types of approaches are taken and turning the d n as the domain name system into a tool geopolitical information warfare. because that threatens the integrity of the internet and the global network. that is the world wide web. so we want to be very careful about this. scott. i saw you nodding along somewhat. courtney was saying there, did you want to jump in? i think dr. us is absolutely spot on and that is the wider issue here beyond us in your on is the president this such ok, fine us happens to be able to trust the domain registry the us to exert pressure on iran. does it do so with other countries? not only china or russia, if they're perceived to be american photos, you could do so with france, germany with the u. k. do other countries who happen to have workplace registered with them? do they now exert pressure on them as well? you know, the thing about taking a stop like this is once you open up the door,

that a state can sort of bring the hammer down on access to the internet. you know, whether it be by state entities or non state entities. you can't close that door. i think this really cries out for something we can address perhaps with a separate program, which is the need for international cooperation over regulations. how many do you believe that this opens up a new front in the global information war? and do you think that this has made things more dangerous? has escalated things? i think it's definitely a dangerous move. something probably we could have expected from the trumpet ministration, but not from the bite and administration which presents itself as a supporter of democracy and freedom of expression. now with regard to the accusation of misinformation, the issue here is who gets to decide what is information? and what is misinformation? if a government, any government, including the iranian government or the u. s. government does this,

then it's simply the center of the internet. and the internet is somewhere where people could express themselves pre the, it's been like this forever. and with regard to the new sites, i mean, especially with press tv and i'll all, and these are you a professional news channels with hundreds of people working in them? and when you sensor them, essentially sends a very bad signal even to the uranian people. because on the one hand, you're always talking about freedom of expression having a variety of voices. but at the same time, if you sensor voices that you don't like, then that would simply be completely wrong. and again, it opens the door for a very dangerous pathway. courtney, if the rationale behind this is to counter this information, you know, you have to look at what happens next, which is that, you know, a lot of these websites, if they've been seized, if the domains have been seized and the websites have been shut down, i mean,

aren't the iranians, if they haven't already, just going to be moving then to other domains and starting new websites that are accessible to everybody. there was the example of foreign news agency, 2018. you know, that was seized. that was shut down and then it moved to a new domain. it was back on line soon afterwards. so how does this move actually help counter disinformation? that's exactly the point, right? this is not the same level of censorship that we see in iran, where it has, you know, blanket blocks in a country against the entire internet and portions of it and has created there been internal internet. but this is an effort to deny iran access to us services and to easily reaching us audiences. the i p address still exists. those websites still exist. they're just not hosted on an american based

donate domain name server. so the same thing is not new. the same thing happened with wiki leaks over a decade ago. the same approach was the proposed in the law in the us that would allow the us to do the same thing for sites that regularly host copyright infringing material. but what we see with this is this expand how this deanna approaches views. but the fact is, you also have to ask, does iran have a right to use all of these expressive services, whether we're talking about domain names, service, twitter accounts, facebook accounts to reach the global public to conveyance messages while it denies the same rights internally forcing its own population to use virtual public vpn virtual private networks, or other anti, you know, other circumvention technologies. and meanwhile, like let's not forget that, denying the ability of a us domain names service provider to host moran in website is

a far cry from the censorship that iran house, with at least 15 journalists in jail. the murder of a journalist, the assassination by the state and you know, overt ramp and censorship. so i think we also need to be careful about kind of false equivalency here. scott, if i might, i'd like to ask you another question with regard to the timing of this move by the us. because this comes just days after abraham racy was elected president in iran, he's the incoming president. the u. s. is accused him of human rights abuses. they've been post sanctions on him in the past. should this in any way be construed as a message to him and his incoming administration? i think is, doctor ross pointed out where we don't know what other the 2 tracks are from earlier are linked in any way. i'd be surprised if the she meant to be

a message tracy, for a couple of reasons. first of all, right, you see is there as effectively as a spokes person for the supreme later he, his manufactured a watch was very much because he was the favorite of the supreme leaders office. all other candidates that could have defeated him, the election were band, were actually blocked by the guardian council. you know, so there's a message being sent here. it wouldn't be the right. you see, it would be to the supreme leaders office. and i don't think that the spring leaders office is going to be that concerned about the seizure of the domains of these sites. because again, as you've noted, the sites continue to operate. and if anything, it gives iran, i think, in a past, sort of an unwitting propaganda victory here, because they can claim to be the victim of the, of the awful americans who are trying to process and suppress their freedoms. when in fact, again, it's dr. rach pointed out, you know, iran has been basically not only a century they've been doing so on a mass scale. and indeed if we were to talk about cross tv, you know, i repress tv every day. i read it every day to try to understand what is going on

from the perspective of the iranian state. and also to really track what has happened, which is that since the 2009 mass protest over the disputed elections in iran or press tv has been curved, sharply curved, and what it can report and how it reports that in other words, the guidelines are much strict on it, if you try to shut down prostate be completely, we don't get smart about what is happening with, with press tv, but with other sites. and that limits or opportunity for the, for dialogue between you and i. and as part of the international community 100, what about those criticisms of iran from various governments and various right groups who say, you know, iran doesn't really have a way to credibly go after the u. s. for this in a country where there is so much censorship, that you know, they cannot cry foul right now because of these moves that have been taken by the u . s. i think it's very true that probably the iranian government won't be able to do anything. but the fact that the uranium government sensors the internet doesn't

make this ok, i mean internet, censorship is wrong anywhere. so if the running government does it, it's wrong. it's the same with the american government. also we have to remember that these word use websites with political messages. they weren't involved. busy in any sort of terrorism or drug trafficking or pornography or anything like that. so the fact that you're actually censoring a political message is, i think, is a very bad move. at the same time, we have to remember that there is a significant power difference here. the americans have a vast array of resources and capacity regarding the internet. now these domains were dot com domain and essentially seizing them, 100 block access all over the world, not just within the united states, and that's different from the uranium government. so the u. s. government is essentially censoring these websites all over the world,

not just within the united states. and i think it are open again a door to maybe at the future if they continue to do this with other countries as well. courtney iranian officials have said that they're going to pursue this through legal channels. are there legal options available to them with regard to this? i think that's a great question because one of the things we saw several years ago is that i can the internet corporation for sign names and numbers which used to be, you know, us, the us used to have control over the whole domain system. well, they've really devolved authority over that. they've created several, many, hundreds of new top level domain names. so press t, v dot i r, which is hosting iran still accessible. you know, it's correct that now dot com dot net these high top level domain names that are hosted and run by us registries. and us based services are

being told that providing a service to iran counteract distinctions. and that the services did not effectively register under the foreign agents registration act known as farrah. so i think this is a lot more complicated because the u. s. is trying to frame does not as a speech thing because they haven't actually censored the content. they've centered, you know, one specific way of getting to that content and they put pressure on the services providing you know, that provide those services to iran saying, you know, this is not acceptable. i think we have to, you know, this also raises questions about other platforms. that allow iran and iranian leaders who may be on thinks and list access to their services to create accounts, et cetera. so whether or not this represents a massive escalation or, you know, kind of a one off salvo i think remains to be seen. but it certainly raises questions about

whether a lot more services are going to be deciding whether they need to register of the for an agent, whether they need to make it clear that they can't provide the services. and we don't know that yet. we don't know if the treasury department is going to pursue that, or if these private companies will decide that they're a debt to be in compliance, they're going to have to deny the service and that would represent a significant escalation in the information war. scott, i saw you're reacting to some would. courtney was saying, did you want to expand the point she was making? right. i think in other words, courtney is absolutely right that you know, just simply as it were a blanket ban. even if you were supposed to enforce your sanctions information really isn't going to i think work and i think will raise in fact, wide or international attention to this on how to deal with it. i think there's interesting parallel, which i'll put out to you. i'd like to hear the reactions, the other guests on this, and that is when we have had this information and preston, he does put out this information times. it's not the majority of information on site, but there is some. but when, for example, you've had russian outlets such as

r t that have put out this information, they have lost their license to operate in certain countries as a broadcast. and the press tv has lost its license to operate in the united kingdom as a broadcaster piece, supposedly because of some different information. i think that question of whether there will be a system of licensing that will be adopted by various states, which will not be as it were, this blanket sweeping ban. but as it were targeting certain sites, if they're found to be pernicious, you know, this information, misinformation and propaganda that maybe the next phase of what we're looking at, not only in terms of the broadcast, in terms of what is available, how might it look to me like you might have wanted to add to what scott was saying that did you want to jump in as well? yes. so i think the fact that the dot i r domain is still operating, i don't think it's going to fix the issue because the dot i or domain is not well known to anywhere in the world. people know the dot com and dot net domain. and

this is actually not a sensor of just some content of the press tv website. it's essentially shutting it down for the international audience. now when we're talking about misinformation in this information from outlets such as r, t or other outlets, if there is like a unbiased international organization, decided then perhaps that could work. but when it's the natural government doing this, i think that is propaganda itself because you're actually shutting down the voices, you don't bite. whereas freedom of expression means tolerating voice. if you don't like, what is it that these websites are saying that is so wrong? i think people should be able to access the information they like, especially when it comes to the internet, which is actually free access to use an access to information for people all over the world. so divide in administration can talk about democracy and freedom of

expression in countries such as iran and then censoring voices within your own that it doesn't bite. it's definitely a double standard. courtney, i mean, trying to counter disinformation and misinformation is so difficult in this day and age. is there a more effective way to do what i mean? who, who does ultimately get to be the arbiter of this? and are there actual concrete steps that can be taken, you know, to really effectively counter the problem? i mean, i think that is the $1000000.00 question that the world is trying to figure out. i mean, one of the things that this whole incident illustrates, again, is the need for a pluralistic you know, environment of, di, enough providers of social media platforms, of places where these things are hosted. because the fact is yes,

dot com and dot net are more well known. but the whole reason of creating new top level domains and now doing in local languages, etc, is to make that more accessible to, to widen up the array of entities that can have these, these, you know, domain names, services you can provide these services. so i think it just emphasizes the need that we need pluralism. you know, if, if, for example, when trump gets kicked off facebook, you know, cries of censorship. if facebook wasn't at 3000000000 person company with massive profits, maybe we wouldn't be so worried about getting kicked off of one platform. so it's really about the, i think, the, the power of, you know, certain platforms that have this outside influence in the internet regulatory sphere. but in terms of combating disinformation, i mean, let's, let's be clear. iran is engaged in disinformation,

targeting the us to undermine its democracy. in the electoral process, that's why you saw several social media platforms take off accounts and content that were trying to spread disinformation and undermine us election last year. and then also, you know, the iranian news organizations and state accounts are using our targeting journalists, iranian journalists who are trying to report freely and independently on the country. think about the b b. c. think about my former colleague young and a resign on adjacent rely on they are targeting them with different from an online harassment campaign. so these are not just neutral reporting, you know, on true on truth or whatever. it's happening with the latest developments in the nuclear talks. they are also aged in information warfare that are also targeting iranian right. isn't scott, we've only got about a minute left. let me just ask you very simply, i mean, where it is all this, leave the u. s. and iranian relationship at the moment, i mean, is it?

is it as bad as it has been for a long time? is there any, any, any possibility that it gets better? and i think in the short term where the rubber hits the road is those nuclear talks and the enter. the 6 round ended last week, and when it did, not only the iranians with european union went to the idea that in the next round of talks, which should take place in the next couple weeks. there might be a deal. and if there's a deal, you know, all these ripples including what we're talking about today, they'll be superseded by this opening. all right, we've got the nuclear deal, but that's when it gets again complicated, because beyond that you get back to the regional issues. so which intercept with the seizures? you know, what about the syrian conflict? remote the iran in the u. s. is involved. what about iraq? what about yemen? in other words, i think the nuclear power off the chessboard important. then we get to these regional issues that will link politics and society and indeed the, i'm not, all right, but we have run out of time, so we're going to have to leave our conversation there. thank you so much, oliver. i guess how much was savvy courtney raj,

and scott lucas and thank you to for watching. you can see this and all of our previous programs. again, anytime by visiting our website, al jazeera dot com, and for further discussion, go to our facebook page at facebook dot com, forward slash ag inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is at a inside story. for me, my how much room and whole team here, bye for now. the i feel 2 months ago, derek chauffeur was found guilty of killing george. now he will be sentenced and could face up to 30 years behind bars to join us on june. the 25th for live

coverage as this historic us court case reaches its conclusions very show. the sentencing on al jazeera, a city defined by military occupation. there's never been an arab state. he with the capital of jerusalem. everyone is welcome. but the default section that maintains the call on a project, that's what it feels, was one of the founders of a settlement with this and the story of juice through the eyes of its own people, segregation, occupations, discrimination, injustice. this is i thought, side in 21st century, jerusalem, a rock and a hard place analogy 0 in india has been devastated by the closing 19 pandemic. the one i want to make the frontline work risking their lives to treat the sick and very the day when i was 0. i care about how the us engages with

the rest of the world. i cover foreign policy, national curity. this is very much a political impact here. the conflict. how do we illustrate it? are we telling the good story people, what we're trying to do here? they're living outside and make sure this is not the way any family wants to raise their children. we're really interested in taking you into a place that you might not visit otherwise. it's actually feel as if you were there . ah, ah, this is al jazeera. ah, hello, i'm rob masterson. and this is the news i live from del, coming up the next 60 minutes. a search for survivors office as a residential building collapses in the us doesn't. it's missing. another grim

discovery for canadian indigenous group says it's found hundreds more unmarked graves that are all the residential schools.