tonight the right you know we're talking about the tiki torch and the people are like i was just there once they got caught being there they were like what's premises to except 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 to 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 or 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 that you also see it when people like the facebook and things like that you censorship because all that does is shine more light on there are some that you are 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 an upset and that's really it all right everybody as we go to break lock 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.

america was never great was founded on the rape and murder. nothing changed so we said all response to these situations that we do in the ways. people get shot every day she is just people killing each other blood for killing children. there was just no way that people are going to just sit back and allow children to be shot down by 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 ride like this is the reason.

they gave us national camera. roughly once they showed some movie you for the. uncool videos and someone with the rocky string of apps. going down more on string i don't rightly don't t.v. .

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 interest they sat down with you to discuss the slippery slope of facebook friends censorship. is this kind of push for the corporate policing of free speech.

and political content it 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 you know 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 russia 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 axes i gave 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 that is pretty fast and that's less was 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 prove 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 blood allows private industry which is you know facebook you know snap chat all these and they can decide what you can or can't say because tiger's 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 is all this speech floured 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 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 would 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 was a direct thought but the. so 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 central 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 have wanted forever right they wanted to be able look in our libraries searching histories they wanted to be able to do warrantless detention 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 is really add russia to the equation and it's it's sort of an instant freakout. 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 here we are. you know we're worried is this go you because it's like all you see is this kind of condensing down you know ok we have lied to google and facebook are now controlling free speech you know you see you know what's five companies now own 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 at some point i don't know because what would what it will 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 this 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 yeah i do think some of the problem that we're facing today is that you know 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 surveyable it's 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 are they going to continue to sort of push the envelope of 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 slogan 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 two thousand and eight crashing 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 that 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. commercial loans so it's yellows this time corporate borrowing has just now gone above the levels the preachy thousand and eight levels so 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 and 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 of president various truman dropped the atomic bomb on hiroshima japan killing over one hundred fifty thousand people and anything living in its wake except for one hundred seventy trees now known as. to look for 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 of a russian 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 story testament you can always keep fighting through even remember the worst circumstances and 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 alone. so i tell

you all i love you i am terribly and i'm top of the law and keep on watching those hawks not a great day and night everybody. greg greg . i. but it was up of both of us. but i. will say that all of his profit. last time we chased. each one of them carrying twenty kilos of drugs this

is a first offense. for that they just stepped right for us. is the very we i mean the more that. they have this is the this is for me. it will be i don't see it or know maybe it'll make or. break free. from now on what. i've been saying the numbers mean something they did matter the u.s. is over one trillion dollars in debt more than ten thousand dollars fine stamping each dish. eighty five percent of the global wealth you long for the ultra rich eight point six percent market saw thirty percent minus minus two years some with

four hundred to five hundred three per second per second and bitcoin rose to twenty thousand dollars. china is building a two point one billion dollar a i industrial park but don't let the numbers overwhelm. the only number you need to remember is one one business shows you know ford to miss the one and only. the plug this leak led. police to just sleep . the was killed at least two of the almost sold was.

completely. breaking news the u.s. senate asked to interview the head of wiki leaks on alleged russian meddling in the twenty six thousand election julian assange has repeatedly denied anything to do with the election related documents exposed by wiki leaks. elsewhere there's concern social media giants a silencing debate have to twitter suspend several prominent libertarian and conservative figures for alleged hate speech. meet a woman who faces a lengthy jail sentence for terrorism after following a husband to syria where he joined islamic state.

good evening welcome this is r.t. internet. wiki leaks a legal team says julian assange is considering the u.s. senate's formal request to testify but only if it conforms to a high ethical standards the senate intelligence committee wants the wiki leaks chief to answer questions on what it calls russian interference in the twenty sixteen american presidential election and see a church and then following the story for us. the u.s. senate intelligence committee has sent a letter to the ecuadorian embassy in london where as we all know the wiki leaks publisher has been holed up for the last six years this letter is addressed to julian assange basically calling upon him to testify in what is being described as a closed interview a mutually convenient time and location now given we all understand julian assange

has made it clear he has no plans to be leaving that embassy any time soon out of his own free will but this is going to be some kind of question and answer session that is probably going to be taking place via some kind of web link and we have seen no that we can leak or julia songes legal team already react to this letter saying they would be open to this kind of testimony but it must conform to a high ethical standards well of course all of this falls under the existing narrative led by the west that julian assange along with russia had something to do with getting donald trump elected back in twenty sixteen and of course when it comes to the topic of russia and being somehow involved with the country julian assange himself has denied any of these allegations over and over again really countless times. is not the russian government and it is not a party this is something a fourteen year old kid a fourteen year old kid could attack and so they are to try to break is that

russian intelligence services hillary clinton stated multiple times falsely seventeen u.s. intelligence agencies had assisted. russia was. the source of publication. that's false and of course the latest that was talked about in washington is twelve russian intelligence officers who were said to have broken into the d.n.c. server and taken sensitive information to be passed on to julian assange and wiki leaks to be later published so hopefully with this kind of to. mr morley that will now apparently be taking place sometime soon with the u.s. intelligence committee more light can be shared in terms of setting the record straight. let's bring in former five intelligence officer sean very good to have you on the line once again and what do you make of this do you really believe it's hard for me to imagine

a jillion assad would agree to testify in a closed session what's your opinion well i think the statement that his lawyers have made that he will he might consider doing it if it's held to the highest ethical standards is a very good tentative first response because of course we don't want to get into a situation that he accept an invitation to take part in this russia gate investigation thereby allowing all the mainstream media the legacy media to claim that if he's doing this and he's giving evidence around this subject he must therefore be involved in russia gate so he's got to be wary of that and i think his lawyers being very cautious i think also bearing in mind the fate of the very first national security adviser of donald trump's administration general michael flynn who found himself caution for a sticky spider's web whereby the f.b.i. had apparently illegally tapped his phone when you is talking to a russian diplomat and then accused him of lying to the f.b.i.

really couldn't remember the exact words spoken during that conversation and prosecute him for lying to the f.b.i. i think you know julian's lawyers have got to be very very careful about how they approach this how it might be perceived and what might be the outcome do you think that the senator's or indeed as bipartisan as they've stated in the letter wiki leaks has just tweeted turn of them recently demanded the songes asylum be revoked . well if political asylum surely is a rock solid thing once you've got it for very sound international legal reasons surely it can't be revoked on the whim of a new president of a country such as the new president of ecuador. but in terms of the bipartisanship of the senate committee it is set up that way sure but it's interesting that one of the people who've actually signed this letter inviting us to give evidence is senator mike mark warner now he's also. also involved in trying to shut down

and control people's access to social media which i heard in the headlines to this new segment means that they're going to be trying to block people having access to facebook and twitter and things like that so you know on the one hand you have people signing up to the fact that let's give julian assange a platform even if it's closed his evidence on the other hand you have the same people saying let's shut down free speech on social media. repeatedly denied the russia was the source behind the d.n.c. hack so what is the point of any new testimony. i'm sure that after seventy years mewed up in the ecuadorian embassy he wants to give his side of the story he does know exactly what happened he must be absolutely frustrated about the. the lies and the myths as been created around russia gate so i can understand his temptation to give evidence even to a closed hearing which is difficult i mean the whole you know i thought ethos of

wiki leaks is to be open and transparent and to bring information out to the public good so yeah it's a difficult one for him i think but let's bear in mind as well that you know putting aside wherever this information came from wiki leaks is a publisher it is a high tech publisher but it is a publisher in the same way that the new york times the washington post and the guardian has been a publisher of similar stories to go after him as a go after him as of embarrassing information for the american government then surely they have to go after the old legacy media for publishing the very same information and this is what the old legacy media should be standing up and speaking out against and fighting against because if we can lease goes down because of these arguments then they are vulnerable to that is the end of our free media that's the end of our free speech now last week the heads of u.s. intelligence security issued a joint statement it said that russia was still interfering in u.s. democracy let's just take a moment to listen to what was said in this thing. our democracy itself is in the

crosshairs paid by russia to try to weaken and divide united states threat is not going away to prevent foreign interference in our elections to prevent russian and other foreign influence and the russians try to hack into and steal information candidates and government officials alike cyber attacks against voting infrastructure along with computer intrusions malicious cyber actors targeting elected officials that goes beyond the elections it goes to russia's intent to undermine our democratic values so if russia still interfering in us democracy presumably we're not going to wait too long to wait claims of interference in the midterm elections will we have a baby presented the public being way without any evidence do you think. i think it's unlikely i mean the investigation has been going on for a year and

a half and no real evidence as i've been put forward. and perhaps you know the russian intelligence agencies are trying to place adverts on facebook or twitter or manipulate twitter or whatever but so do all other countries and this is something that we all need to bear in mind i mean america has got a really bad track record of doing this the cia particularly in meddling in elections across latin america and other countries only this week there was an attempt instead nicolas maduro so i think venezuela and he's been alleging that the cia might behind be behind that and they have been statements by the cia that they are certainly interested in the outcome of any future elections in venezuela this happens time and time again all our countries do this it's naive to think that they wouldn't take an interest in the elections other countries but it doesn't mean it's only russia doing it and let's also bear in mind as well last year there was a lot of hysteria around the fact that emanuel our crohn's emails were being hacked in the run up to his presidential election it turned out to be false after the

french intelligence agencies investigated these internal angela merkel was claiming that it's going to be russian hacking in the run up to the german elections last year that turned out to be false the german d.n.d. investigates it and found no evidence whatsoever there's been no evidence whatsoever in what was alleged to be involvement in bret's it vote in two thousand and sixteen what has been established certainly is that a british company cambridge analytical was certainly trying to manipulate the results in america and certainly try to manipulate results and breaks it so you know to say it's only russia that tries to meddle tries to to manipulate election results is naive at best all other countries do it. pleasure is always to speak to many thanks for your opinions on a five intelligence officer former intelligence officer. now for six years the wiki leaks chief's been stuck in the ecuadorian embassy in london over fears that he'll be extradited to the u.s. if he leaves the building some u.s.

politicians have even called for him to.