it's just strange to be in science actually is i think what so what you really have to put into perspective about this tonight the right you know we're talking about the tiki torch and the people are like i was just there to once they got caught being there they were like what its premise as to accept the jews will not overtake . the thing about that is that it doesn't actually help their case a lot of the science into protests show those kinds of protests don't have a thing about it there was a study out last year at stanford and the university of toronto and they were looking at extreme protest matters rob miller a stanford sociologist to and co-author of the study stated that the reason that extreme protesters were dissuaded is that less radical bystanders couldn't identify with that people generally don't see themselves as disruptors of the social order even for the causes they believe in so what he's saying is even if they agree with you on some level i about any kind of mistreatment or their you know legitimate

times when conservatives or people in certain popular opinions were targeted by the iraq's or somebody else. coming out with this like. angry and angry back doesn't actually help dissuade anybody you're just preaching to your choir and the choir that screaming back at you know what's really interesting too is the you also see it when people like the facebook and things like that you censorship because all that does is shy more light on the there are some that you that you're trying to keep quite right and do with the world memoir you know it's like alex townes mailer you not bless all of it bug you go too far you get taken off and not that there and that's really all right everybody as we go to break walk watchers don't forget to let us know what you think of the topics we've covered on facebook and twitter see our poll shows at our t.v. dot com coming up we slide down that slippery slope of corporate censorship with journalist matt taibbi so stay tuned for watching the whole.

i. voted with a post it was a. last time we chased. each one of them carrying twenty kilos of drugs. forced offense to. believe that they just don't worry. it's the very we i mean all my little mind they that they have. this business for me. i don't know maybe they'll get

a make or. break. apart. around war. the americans are still in shock they're still dealing with the psychological damage of nine eleven they still need enemies they still unjustified they still are having trouble walking through it meanwhile the rest the world is.

with russia game alex jones now being cited as examples of the dangerous abuses of free unrestrained speech on social media platforms politicians like mark warner the democrat out of virginia are putting political pressure on social media and tech giants to root out and clean up speech that capitol hill deems it appropriate dangerous this pressure has caused companies like facebook to seek help from rather curious political groups like the atlantic council on whose board matt taibbi in a recent rolling stone article observed you'll find confidence inspiring names like henry kissinger former cia chief michael hayden former acting cia had mike morrell and former bush era homeland security chief michael chertoff are on tire of interim recently sat down with saeed to discuss the slippery slope of facebook friends censorship. is this kind of push for the corporate policing of free speech. and political content

a kind of his manifesto itself you know recently with kind of facebook executives teaming up with a group of the atlantic council to decide you know what is fake news and bad political speech and what is good news and good political speech. how many different ways is this a really bad idea it's it's unbelievably scary and. even if you take the worst case scenario view of what happened in two thousand and sixteen with russian meddling. this is a separate. and extremely terrifying political development that has been going on for a long time even independently again of the russian story because a huge part of what's happening now with this whole situation with facebook zapping sites that you know some think tank full of x e i t. people like the atlantic council that would would not be possible had not. the news landscape been extremely

concentrated in the hands of the century two actors now i'd like seventy plus percent of the district distribution of news in this country is either facebook or google so if you have a government. group meeting with facebook to decide what news to distribute and what not that's essentially like a you know a government run censorship program and we've never had anything even close to that except in wartime in this country and this is this is it's an extraordinary development and there's a there's a lack of. like a lot of things is i think there's a lack of an ability to see the forest for the trees here because you know down the road you know having the white house and the congress meet with facebook decide what news we see i mean this is pretty fast and that stressful so frightening and you know. given the you know the i don't think we ever really saw this coming or we didn't read again lack of foresight that you know when you suddenly had facebook

the internet you know social media pressure you don't chat group you know all of that kind of come up in this kind of unrestrained free speech at the market i don't think anyone predicted it would get to the level that was out today even back then . how is that changed how we need to view the first amendment because normally first amendment is that protects free speech from government you know government can't tell you what you can or can't say. allows private industry which is you know facebook snap chat all these and they can decide what you can accounts they can start a group private industry how do we keep free speech if suddenly corporations are going to decide what is a pretty speech it's a very important question i think one of the things that people need to understand is we had we had a pretty decently functioning system for a long time in this country that was based on the idea that bad or noxious or libelous or defamatory speech we dealt with in a very specific way through litigation we deliberately set the bar very high to

prove what libel or defamation was going back to like nine hundred sixty four. but when the internet came along we created a carve out for internet companies and we essentially the law is called the communications decency act i think and this law basically says that you cannot hold an internet carrier responsible for the defamation or the libel that takes place on your platform so that means that all this speech flowered on all these platforms and you can't sue the companies for it so it created the shield for defamatory libelous fake speech everything right. and people are now overreacting in the other direction they're saying there's no natural way to go back and suppress this so now we need to just appeal to them to be been a benevolent censors for us and that's the really dangerous thing would be if it

goes all the way to the point of fact asking facebook to start working with the government to decide what is and isn't isn't that that's bad it is bad it is bad and. we it's interesting because it's like it feels like we were talking a little bit about before it feels like everything involving russia is now this kind of catch all it's a lot like al qaeda was right after nine eleven that it's pretty much like any any neat thing we were thinking of need to them but you know terrible for us that was look like you know we want to kind of use the russia name and use that fear to been passed something through internet free speech everyone's talking but i think we need to kind of rein that in maybe we can you know i don't know if this is the direct thought but you know there's that kind of thing of like maybe now we can use this kind of russia thing to help rein that him because we're scaring these platforms is essentially sense of self censorship yeah absolutely it's it's analogous you know the. after nine eleven you had the pentagon the

security state they had all these things that they probably wanted forever right they wanted to be able look in our libraries searching histories they wanted to be able to do warrantless the tension they wanted to be able to do enhanced interrogation they wanted to do drone attacks all this stuff they want to go to war without having to ask congress. and they got it up because people were terrified after nine eleven and this is so you know it's obviously politically a completely different situation but it's similar in the sense that all you have to do this really add rush to the equation and it's it's sort of an instant freak out . and i think facebook. was so terrified of the public relations consequences of being tied to this political story that they you know they turtled and now we have this very dangerous situation we're. money type media distributor is working and with the government and that would never

happened you know with three years ago people would have been up in arms about it but now here we are. you know we're worried as. this is go i mean you know because it's like all you see is this kind of condensing down you know ok we have like to give google and facebook are now controlling free speech you know you see you know what's five companies now only all the media i mean it's just this complete condensing down is there do you think we're going to get past this is there hope do you think that we're going to break out of this of some point i don't know because what would what it would require is some kind of anti-monopoly like a you know and i trust action against these companies and i don't really see that on the horizon i think that. you need a lot of political bravery and what i was really worried about i saw those like a bird hearings earlier this year i wrote about this you know the only person. who brought up the idea of an antitrust action during that entire hearing was lindsey

graham. and everybody else what they seem more anxious to do was use facebook's monopolistic power rather than split it up or diminish it and i think that's that's where we're at we're in this dangerous place where these two gigantic companies that have you know sensually a stranglehold on information not just in america but all over the world rather than try to diminish that power that we have politicians who are anxious to use it and that that should be something that scares everybody they do i do think some of the problem that we're facing today is the no we're getting a lot of our leaders political leaders even a lot of the executives and media organizations what it is that everyone is kind of looking two years down the road or the next election cycle down the road rather than thinking in terms of like what happens fifty years from now right yeah no i think that's. it's it's a it's a common problem that's going on across politics right now which is that people are

not thinking about the long term implications of things you know these sort of embrace of surveillance tools right leg where does that lead if we let that go on you know unimpeded without any oversight for another twenty years you know like there are they going to continue to sort of push the envelope on what they're allowed to do what they're not allowed to do like people aren't realizing how quickly things can develop in a negative direction because america has never really had the experience of sliding into full blown to you know totalitarianism or something like that but the technical ability for something like that to happen is there you know and i think the people need to worry about that like it was a snowden so it's turnkey dictatorship is kind of already on the books i just haven't had the group come in to really do it right right it's it's there it's there it's possible and all it would take would is a little bit more acquiescence from the population on some on some key issues and this frankly to me this is

a big one like the censorship one like it happened last week and it was almost like the entire media landscape just sort of shrugged about it and i was amazed by that it is it is truly amazing last i want to ask you september is coming up which actually i think marks the ten year anniversary of the two thousand and eight crash and when lehman brothers fell or of september fourteenth or fifteenth or whatever was yeah it was out of the yeah yeah i mean it was going on since two thousand and eleven but that's kind of the ten year mark. what have we learned in the last ten years from the bottle nothing yeah yeah. and i've been hearing i've been hearing about this for about a year now that a lot of the same behaviors that we saw prior to two thousand and eight with the mortgage markets are going on in some other markets you're seeing you know an explosion of commercial lending instead of instead of mortgage backed c.d.o. as you're seeing. mercial loans what's yellows this time of corporate borrowing has just now gone above the levels the preachy thousand and eight levels we have it

once again a giant pile of leverage just sitting atop the economy. you know and maybe they will have more of a read on it this time that it won't happen but. i think the failure to really institute appropriate rules last time creates a lot of danger that it could happen again. seventy three years ago this week the american military under the direction president various truman dropped the atomic bomb on bush mage upin killing over one hundred fifty thousand people and anything living in its wake except for one hundred seventy three is now known as. general or a bombed trees these biological survivors all sit within about two thousand meters of the center of the blast point the spring after the bombing again goes not only lived but they bloom bringing a small shining reminder to the people of hiroshima that life can overcome even the

most horrific currently there are thirty two different species that can book according to the city a ferocious are from we've been well as to camp for trees and what they teach us is the importance of life of seeing the good in the bad and realizing that in the darkest moments mother nature is there to. show us where firing. always no peace and the high baku. live long. story a story testament you can always keep fighting through even in the worst circumstances the same goes for free speech keep keep keep talking keep speaking be prepared for the consequences of your free speech but don't ever stop talking and don't let anyone tell you to stop talking our that is our show for you today remember everyone in this world we are not told that we are loved. so i tell you all i love i am into robot and i'm having a lot of people watching those talks about

a great day and night everybody. first. of all those. two additional don't google so dungy went on the first thanks. so much wants. us to tell you. how the receipt. eat. it to most digital. groups some some shooting because the sheen you know.

was not. new to. me that's. the beatles but it's i mean. if they were. fortunate enough. to sing us tomorrow. to thomas was remembering a little smile at. the very building never great was founded on the rates in the murder. nothing changed so we said in. response to these situations that we do in the ways. people get shot every day she is just people kill each other blood for killing

children. so it was just no way that people are going to just sit back and allow children to be shot down law enforcement. this country doesn't work for us it doesn't function for. this this can't be happening in america we call from the streets we've got to deal with why this is the reason i have to read like this is the reason. join me every thursday on the alec simon show and i'll be speaking to guest on the world of politics small business i'm show business i'll see you then. i.

believe. twitter is accused of double standards after banning an activist for offensive comments against black people. tweets against whites and challenge. the bad lines in for was one of the most popular controversial alternative news websites has been banned by leading social media platforms was described as hate speech. and that of a visit by the international chemical weapons watchdog to the next week the media

continues to speculate on the poisoning case and the u.k. has asked russia to extradite suspects. national are from moscow just here in the capital and i know who can start for joining us this. conservative activist in the us has fallen foul of twitter's guidelines on racism she was in fact conducting an experiment using old tweets about white people and substituting the word white for black or jewish and has more on the story. candace owens she's from turning points usa conservative organization in the usa what she did was she took tweets from new york times journalist sarah job and simply replaced the words white with the words black or the word jewish the response of twitter was to shut down her account candace owens says that twitter

was right to take down her posts and ban her for making hateful comments regarding black and jewish people she says however the outrage is that sarah jiang was not banned for making these comments about white people on the surface i actually agree with tweeter with twitter assessment i believe that what i said what i tweeted was wrong you should not be able to tweet about any race or any group that you want them canceled that they should live underground i don't know why suddenly people think that white people are excluded from that scenario that people can't be racist towards white people when in fact they often are the problem with the new york times essentially saying shinning her behavior is that they are signaling to the rest of the world that racism actually is ok as long as you pick the the right race this was candice owens first statement to her followers after the ban twitter not only reinstated her account but actually apologized and said that it was

a mistake for her to be banned now immediately there was a firestorm with people pointing to what they see as a double standard by the way as you go. tweets and replace the points with blank i'm in tweets of bones that i was double standard every time i see one of these i can't help substitute black for white can't is so stupid i will never understand the double standard why it's acceptable to so many now the wikipedia page of the new york times journalist is also in question now the page simply describes her as a journalist and has minimal contact regarding the controversy surrounding her tweets it appears that has there. has now been added a small reference to it but sarah john there on these tweets the controversy surrounding them seems to be quite a big issue we get pedia seems to make efforts to minimize that a lot of debate yet another example of how in the united states when it comes to issues of race and free speech americans just don't see eye to eye. the new york

times issued a statement defending its decision to hire sarah jones said she simply used the same language of trolls who were racially insulting on twitter and her remarks satirical following news of a twitter suspension activist candace owens was harassed on the street by anti fascist protesters. was having breakfast time with another. when they were confronted demonstrators could be seen shouting abuse as they crowded around police were quickly on the scene. of twitter's war on offensive speech doesn't and the social media giant has suspended several libertarians from its platform using improper language or even retreating inappropriate messages i know mcadams executive director of the ron paul

institute has been suspended from twitter so after he read tweeted a message from scott horton editor of antiwar dot com criticizing a journalist orton's account has also been suspended you heard from a twenty twenty presidential candidate for the libertarian party he believes twitter is showing a clear political bias. twitter's a private company has the right to do this that does not mean that they should do this they're setting a horrific example by turning their platform into a pro-state left wing ideologues operation rather than as an open marketplace for ideas they're not blocking hard core left wing activists they're blocking hard core libertarian activists they're not blocking the people who think it's ok to use the state to rob people of their money and spend it on nonsense they're blocking the people are saying that the state should stop robbing us we are they're not blocking everyone equally they're just blocking the people who want to oppose the state to me this is a clear sign that quitter that twitter has become part of just another piece of the

mainstream media that is supporting the status quo that is supporting the military industrial complex and that it really needs to be treated by the american people as an ideological enemy and one of the most popular online alternative news channels in for wars has also seen a crackdown facebook you tube apple and spotify of all blocked its accounts and taken down its contents all on the same day as how facebook explain the move we've taken it down for glorifying violence and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender muslims and immigrants which violates our hate speech policies the info was launched in the early one nine hundred ninety s. by alex jones his youtube videos have been watched over one point six billion times many have deemed him a puddle of conspiracy theories twenty fifteen donald trump appeared on the channel and praised his work people on social media have been divided though about the. i

don't support alex jones or what in four was produces he's not a conservative however banning him in his outlets is wrong it's not just a slippery slope it's a dangerous cliff apple removing alex jones him in for worse isn't some terrible form of censorship against conservatives he said sandy hook wasn't real he's seeing parents from the school he said the holocaust wasn't real his not just a conservative is a conspiracy theorist hurts people for war says it has been banned by facebook for unspecified hate speech regardless of the facts in this case there bill it's a facebook to censor rival publishers is a global anti trust problem a political commentator jane a lot of believes the decision could prove damaging for social media. whether or not you agree with alex jones i would be just the same amount of adamant that i think it's bad policy to ban people no matter what i mean it really no matter what

i mean in the united states we have a concept of free speech that we love very much it means a lot to us now these are private companies they can do what they want to do i'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do this and i'm certainly not saying that government should regulate whether or not private companies can make decisions like this but i am saying i think it's a bad decision and i think that in the long run it will not pay off for these companies it is it extremely slippery slope i do believe ultimately that probably some conservative ety will come up with competitive platforms for the ones that are doing the banning and the censoring and ultimately they will have stiff competition that may even relegate them to relative obscurity because of things like this especially if they remain so one sided. and european companies which trade with iran are caught in the crossfire between brussels and washington and i'll face punishment if they comply with u.s.

sanctions or refused to comply is new companies guard guy u.s. second research actions they will in turn be sanctioned by the european union iran sanctions have officially been cast these are the most biting sanctions ever imposed and in november they ratchet up to yet another level anyone doing business with iran will not be doing business with the united states i'm asking for world peace nothing less the u.s. government to reimpose sanctions on iran after pulling out of an international nuclear deal the first round of sanctions restricts terrans trade in u.s. dollars and precious metals it also publishes countries that use the iranian real when trading with iran financial analysts should be the new sanctions pose a dilemma for major corporations. the situation that's developing is that on the one hand companies would be penalized by usa for doing business in iran and at the same time if they're follow their diktats from washington the potential of those

companies being penalized in the european union so it puts these companies in a very difficult situation but this i think is only applicable to the very large multinational corporation is that have exposure to different regions perhaps the as amy sector the slump is a small to medium enterprises that are operating in the european union they may want to do trade with iran and because they have no exposure possibly with their u.s. market therefore they'd be able to stand up and continue doing business with iran. gang warfare took over the streets of chicago this weekend with numerous bystanders caught up in the crossfire twelve people were killed sixty six others injured including several children police say armed gangsters in the city simply don't fear the law.