will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk the this hours. headline stories the highest court in texas rules. facebook is liable for a quote knowingly benefiting from sex traffickers. it comes to several victims to the company for feeling to protect them from abusers, naming. they were forced into prostitution via the network. the us state department, the issues of warning, telling americans not to travel to russia, placing the country on the same risk list as syria, uganda and afghan list for reasons including suppose a terrorism and a group of british m. p, 's hand or cross parties lesser to belmore, the prison, in which they demand the ride to visit wiki leaks, co founder julianna's songs. we hear from the former leader of the opposition,

who was among those taking part. i've often spoken about jonathan in egypt, in mexico, it indonesia, in many other places. but suddenly it's all different julian, colleges ah, wherever you're counting the program from today. welcome to moscow into the news r and r t. our top story. in a groaned, breaking decision, the highest court in texas has rule that facebook can be held liable for, quote, knowingly, benefiting from sex traffickers. several victims recently sued the world's biggest social network for feeling to protect them from abusers and use the side to force them into prostitution. as teenagers are senior correspondent, morocco t of reports. one of the girls suing facebook was 14, when

a man of about 30 message to sunni methodically, he groomed her try to logically condition her. for 2 years later, she would find herself in a motel room, being grave by strangers or another girl, or 214 the predator groomed her advertised on instagram traffic is used instagram to arrange dates. as a result, plaintiff was raped numerous times for in plaintive rescue from the trafficking scheme. traffic is continued to use her profile to attempt the entrap of the miners in the same manner. painted some of the reports of these activities. facebook, which never responded. the trio now suing facebook are and normally many boys and girls. they never speak out because of fear because of a barrel and shame. they could be your kids, my kids defenseless, against the bedroom, predator who prays on psychologically vulnerable. kids news,

their weaknesses, the amount of sex traffic of on facebook and instagram, which it owns these booth astonishing and revolting. the internet is a major platform for traffickers to recruit, sex traffic and victims, and solicit buyers of commercial sex in 202059 percent of online victim recruitment in active sex traffic and cases occurred and facebook. facebook's lawyers shout about section $230.00. so section $230.00 is a law which states that online platforms cannot be held responsible for the words or actions of the users, which makes sense if you shut down every website where someone says something offensive, there wouldn't be an into that left except of course, facebook may have been complicit, holding incident platforms accountable for the words or actions that they use is one thing, and the federal precedent uniform. it, it states that section $230.00 does not allow it's holding internet puff accountable for their own misdeeds,

is quite another thing. this is particularly the case for human trafficking. what do you have to do with a trafficker? messages? someone through direct messages have moderators read every single private message that uses exchange. and facebook says that it's doing what it can. sex traffic and it's a porn's not allowed on facebook with continue to fight against the spread of this content, and the predators who engage in it. except facebook really isn't putting up much of a fight. and traffic isn't the p that fall using facebook. a much more brazen than you would think. plaintiff was 15 years old in 2012 when she was friend it by end of the facebook user, with whom she shared several mutual friends. the user profile featured photographs of scantily clad young women in sexual positions with money stuffed in their mouths, as well as other deeply troubling content. according to reports, these pinks and traffic is even by up advertisement on facebook's platforms,

which facebook ads and does approve and makes money on that go the argument that facebook is complicit in under age sex trafficking, se louis representing the victims and the courts agree we do not understand section $230.00 to create a lawless, no man's land on the internet. in which states a powerless to impose liability on websites that knowingly or intentionally participate in the evil of online human trafficking. if the case succeeds, facebook and other online johns will have a much tougher tab of hiding behind pieces of paper with section 230 stamped them claiming defied sex trafficking, even as they profit from hosting p. the fall pages and running, grooming ads. know if this case succeeds, facebook will actually have to start fighting the sex trafficking industry that has made its platforms a home. and the thing is that facebook comes under so much hurt me because they

have this powerful censorship apparatus is our cooperate to monitor every little thing happening on their site. and they choose to ignore the really green stuff and over the political thing, apparently occurring on their slides. really bad piano, facebook, and it's good reason or, you know, parents see the store is there and might want their kids on instagram. facebook, rightly so. it's scary, spatial doesn't like press like this at all. they're, they're very scared of it. and especially where young people are concerned. they obviously want to young people and parents. they want to rope and young people. they want to get them hooked on these platforms and keep them to be lifelong users . so facebook is going to want to clean it up simply for p r. i would imagine the us state department has issued a special trouble alerts warning. it citizens not to head to russia under any circumstances. it sites a whole host of reasons for the decision do not travel to russia due to terrorism, harassment, by russian government,

security officials. the emphasis limited ability to assist us citizens in russia and the arbitrary enforcement of local law. your citizens may become victims of harassment, mis treatment, and extortion. all u. s. government personnel should carefully consider their need to travel to russia . basically what the state department has done, it's declared russia level for threat to be fair though. several countries have recently received this bump up to threat level for including many in europe. but many of most of those countries received that level due to current covered 19 concerns. in russia's case, however, the main threat, according to the state department, is terrorism and potential abuse by government officials. apparently, according to this state department, terrorists are literally around every corner here in russia. terrorist groups, trans national and local terrorist organizations, and individuals inspired by extremist ideology, continues reporting possible attacks and russia. terrorists may attack with little

or no warning targeting tories locations, transportation, hobbs, markets and shopping malls, local government, facilities, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, major sporting and cultural events, educational institutions, airports and other public areas. now, these statements, for many people who have been to russia or especially live in russia, these statements are just ridiculous and absurd, nothing to do with reality. in everyday life, in russia, and just for context. this kind of implies that the state department is traveling to russia as dangerous as travelling to countries like of gas to stand syria and libya literal war zone. i think if i'd read this before coming here, i might no state for 15 years to me. try to be honest, it's scary stuff and terror the terror threat. russia is not exactly the only country affected by the art. is it? obviously not, of course, terrorism does happen in russia, but kind of rarely,

i mean, yes, we saw the situation cause on over a month ago. but more often than not, these stories about the headings, knife attack settings, killings. they're not coming most of the time from russia. they're coming from countries like the u. s. the u. k. germany, france. yet somehow, none of these countries have been designated as level for threats. apparently, according to the state department of the mythical threat. terrorists and russia is far greater than everything that's been happening in europe over the past few years . here's just a few examples of opened a terrorism investigation after a police employee was stamped to death at a police station near paris for news tonight about the deadly terror attack outside of paris. this is the 3rd terror attack in just over a month in friends. perhaps we should point either this, not that long ago that we're hearing about the term stable, unpredictable relations that bite administration seeing that's what they wanted with and from russia. how does that fit with these developments?

well, basically just flies in the face of everything. the bio ministration has been saying the stuff we heard during the bite and fruits and summit. but it's not exactly surprising. sure, there's a lot of talk by this by demonstration about stable relations treating each other fairly. but in practice it turns out to be basically a game of double standards and flip flopping when whenever it comes to us relations . and 1st, we're friendly, then rushes, not number one, and then it's a level for travel thread and all the time the bite administration keep things stuff like this. we see a predictable, stable relationship with russia. we want to stable, predictable relationship. we're not looking to de escalate, we would prefer to have a more stable, more predictable relationship. president food and i had a share, unique, responsible to manage the relationship between 2 powerful and proud countries. a relationship that has to be stable and predictable. all these statements obviously,

sounds lovely and there's a lot of people who do want russia and the u. s. to get along. but with gestures like this thread designation, it seems obvious that there's still a lot of people in washington who want to see russia as an enemy as a threat. and relations between the 2 countries have been on this kind of one step forward to step back. kind of trend, and as long as that's the thing the relations probably won't get any better anytime soon, especially with the us constantly finding and making up reasons to describe russia as the bad guy in a bad place. and move also follows rushes decisions about the u. s. on its list of on friendly countries along with the check republic. from us marine corps intelligence officer, scott ritter. so he's washington may say they want a stable relationship, but their actions have yet to demonstrate that. clearly it's a political move because russia is not this dangerous, is afghans, dan, syria, and another nations that are engaged in ongoing conflicts. i believe it's more of

a retaliatory measure taken in response to russia listing the united states as, as an enemy. the white house is very careful with his words. predictable and stable . does not mean friendly, under no circumstances, doesn't mean friendly, means predictable and stable. united states has painted russia as, as an adversary, not as a friend, but what it wants to ensure is that, like perhaps during the cold war era where the united states and the soviet union were not friendly, were adversarial. there was a predictability and the stability and the relationship that allowed, you know, adversarial feelings and emotions not to spin out of control into actual conflict. so the, the goal here is to have the united states and russia talk, so that there is predictability. so that there isn't going to be a war,

so that's there's ability, so there isn't going to be an attendant consequences. this doesn't mean where friends, where not united states has made it clear. it is not friendly with russia. it says in the future would like to be, but it's taking no steps in that direction. and you know, that's just the unfortunate reality of the times. we live in britain, maximum security, bellmarks prison. so quite the crowd on tuesday, a number of m. p. 's join supporters of julianna songs for a protest inside the facility where the wiki leaks co founder is currently being held. the politicians handed in a course party letter to the prison in which they called out bellmarks his refusal to allow a meeting with a soldier. the protest comes out to the main witness in the u. s. case against the son reportedly admitted giving false testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution. we heard from the former leader of the new cale position, jeremy corbett, who was among that was at the protest. i visited many prisons and many prisoners

over all the years. i've been a member of parliament and is perfectly normal. the members of parliament granted with due process of facility. we now want a group of us to be able to talk to julian, probably by video link in order we can discuss his case and help to form our own opinions and encourage other members of parliament understand their role in what i hope will be a very strong campaign to prevent his extradition away from this country. julian spent years in ecuador, and embassy was then taken out the door. embassy is now in a maximum security prison. the case went to court. the court refused the request for extradition. therefore, at that point, the case of n good will should have done, but instead, the united states is give notice that it intends to appeal against this extradition and seek to take it back to the court of appeals and eventually presumed to supreme

court. which would mean that he could be extra to the usa, where he would trace a minimum prison sentence of a 175 years. we have appealed to president biden, to not go ahead with this appeal to drop the case. so the julian can be free and what we've done today here at this maximum security prison in se london belmont, is to ask 2 questions. one is the government. we consider her decision to refuse a private members. apartments on a legal basis for julian massage, and also to make the point that judy is somebody that stood up for the truth to around the world has helped us to understand what happening. and in so many other places around the world where the u. s. military have done such terrible things and we think he is a journalist of distinction. i've often spoken about germans. 2 and in egypt and mexico and indonesia, in many other places, but suddenly different julian challenges. i don't know if he has

spoken the truth about what has happened around the world. the spanish government has passed a controversial draft bills that would allow people over the age of 16 to freely change their gender without the medical diagnosis or hormone therapy. according to the draft children age between 14 and 16 would need parental permission or by going to court. if there are disagreements from the age of 12, it would only be possible to legally switch gender through the courts. i'm happy to say we can go live now to call it diana women's rights activists with her and stephanie hayden, lawyer and media commentator. it's a pleasure to have you both in the program. thank you. stephanie, can we kick off with you? can you really say that a 14 year old is mature enough to make such a life altering decision why they need to rush forward with this?

surely the completely sensible thing to do is wait just a few more years until you're of a more auto frame of mind. and you're sure. well, this is why in spain, the idea is to involve the court. below the age of 16, the court in conjunction with the parents, the child concerned, takes into account all the evidence of that particular individual case and reaches and informed not prejudicial decision. i think that system which is being proposed in spain is ideal. i mean, i have some issues with what's being proposed. we may come from in a few moments. the basic premise that a court with the parents on the child concerned will make the decision, i only think is progressive and on a really good idea. what just on the point again, stephanie, you have sometimes very progressive parents wanting to push a certain ideology,

wanted children we have seen before. this will make it easier. i disagree even in the unlikely event that you have progressed of all as we may say in the you k. yeah, the from to the matcher is you have a safe golfing mechanism in the judiciary, an independent judiciary and a european democratic country. i'm happy to go with what you saw, right? no, but the parents, if they say it's fine, you don't need to go to court. that's correct, isn't it? if they say yes, my child wants to change sex, you don't have to get that followed up in court. is just it stuff that's rubber stump. my understanding is that there will be a traditional mechanism below set. an age setting able 16. i understand will be the decision of the young adult consent if you've got all, let's be clear. i think i believe below 12. it's a definite course involvement. 12 to 14. it would be the parents in conjunction

with the child. but again, if we're talking about a modern democratic country, you know, for example, there was serious concerns that parents were pushing the child one way or another. the social services explain that couldn't be ok inappropriate. you would hope to hear you would hope that paula, the law doesn't focus on physically changing gender or going through hormone treatment. it's essentially a piece of paper. so why is it such a big problem? do you think exactly. that's also one of the major problems of this being a draft in a poorly way in my opinion. and this is very important because the we can, we can think the sex doesn't mean anything. and unfortunately he dives out of course in the edo ward or a router. but unfortunately we know that men as an sample were widely more

aggressive with the women if we look at the statistics. and so that's why i don't think we should also consider gender people in the same way because we have to protect. we men always all the time. so we have to divide, you know, people who are real transitioning because they believe in that because they feel they, they're part of another gender. and that's fantastic, like 100 percent. you know, i'm with them. but we have to be careful that we don't have some sexual predators. and unfortunately, you know, we might find them more in the category of men transitioning to women than in the opposite one. so that's why i think we should make differences, you know, in and the way we accept all type of transitions and indefinitely. my opinion, if someone is serious about, you know, what he feels or she feels, i think we should request at least you know,

hormone therapy is because as an example, one thing that makes men more aggressive and more violent than we men. and we all know that you are a scientist, biologic, they know that is the presence of testosterone level of the officer and body next. okay, we will, we will get to some of those points in just a moment. but stephanie, we do know a lot of cases when people have either regretted changing sex or have changed back . isn't there a danger of letting last thing, psychologic, co trauma, if a child perhaps falls under the influence of something, use something interesting, but then regrets it later. okay, let's have a look at what's being proposed. interesting as centrally is that legal documents which allow somebody to change the legally recognized gender sex. if you made a 2 terms often interchangeable when it comes to the law where we're talking about

children, we're not talking about sexual predators, men who will to change the women's toilets or any of the silly sky stories that are often truck down by people with the same views as pablo people do not transition likely. i mean, one concern i have with the spanish proposal is that he seemed to be any element if you like, of medical supervision. now, that's a very controversial opinion. i hold in. i generally do support the involvement of the medical profession. that is what we have here in the u. k. all gender recognition of 24. there's just been a debate about reforming dot u. k. government has decided against removing the magical element and that's a decision to for many people do not paula. in the last number of years,

we are seeing an increase of those people who are willing to change their birth gender. so, so why not just for move actually, sec designation from public birth certificates in the 1st place. you've got the american medical association thing, it will advocate for that in order to avoid discrimination. i mean again because we're not leaving in an ego word, we are leaving an award where men for centuries have oppressed women and they're still doing so unfortunately. so we have to keep track of that. we have to actually understand more why this is happening and try to make, you know, all the affirmative action in loan to, to stop this type of discrimination abuse and violence against doing. and that's why you know, for 5 minutes. but for anyone who actually cared for our girth and our, you know, women, we have to find a way to protect them. but definitely this is not any type of discrimination you know, against the person who wants to change. and they're actually, in my opinion,

the focus of the, the deal in spain, but in any other country should be to protect these, you know, keep on everyone from discrimination, abuse, homophobia tropical yet because these are the more things and everything is coming from the mastercard. sure. everything is coming from the patriarchal society, so the structure that actually presses, you know, women and oppressors also people who wants to change gender. so that's why i think they should do much more in order to defend these people because there's nothing worse than violence against someone who feels you know, he's part of another gender. ok, there's nothing wrong with it. stephanie teenage years or a time of confusion for many, aren't they? isn't there a danger that gender is getting mixed up sexuality and you, you have people thinking they're probably bored into the wrong body on their, for need a lifetime of medical medication when in fact they're just gay. milk. let me make one thing for me because we're talking about children here. so that is an important

issue. yes, i'm aware we're talking about children. but in any event, when one contemplate for life changing decision of change in one gender or stacks, they feel like that should never be undertaken lightly. it should be undertaken on the basis of medical and social advice. bringing in the parents were concerned children, i'm yes, inappropriate cases, especially a young gauge. the judiciary, no body is saying, let's just change gender. we're jolly good luck. nobody saying let's all go. but the children with respect somebody, all 3 of the raced by those with palos than if you miss all the same arguments we had against homosexual men in the united kingdom in the 1980s. it's the same old l g b t o b a rehash for the decades of the 21st century. it's nonsense. it's rubbish. i say children let the parents let the courts make the decisions

together. paula, you'd clearly a few thought allegation. yeah, yeah, of course. i mean, i think there's a quotation just nonsense, i'm sorry, i'm, i'm totally pearl, you know, i had to be cheeky community. actually, let's remember that it's because of the feminist movement that the society now is more open. and we actually accept people of different sexual orientation. so it's, it's obviously not true. but anyway, i'm not here to accuse anyone on year to find solutions. and i also want to point out one thing that, of course is stephanie said, you know, no one takes this without, you know, a light heart to do this, to take this type of decision. but it is also known that many times people, they also go back, they think, you know, they maybe made the wrong decision and they decide to did transition. so we should actually think about them as well. and the in the, this is a draft of be actually sorry to interrupt, but that's my point. yeah,

that's my pointed both of you because it is important if you have a 14 year old child for instance, who thinks i'm definitely in the wrong body on you have parents who support dot helen or our parents. going to refute topic if they're afraid of suicide, they're afraid of self harm. so they're going to press ahead with, with whatever the child decides, because the other option is worse, it could lead to death. so you've got a situation where children are making decisions that they may not be adult enough to make stephanie, that's why we have experts. that's why we have social services. that's why we do dish every, any stage approach that we're talking about spain among your p and country, but we could be told about the united kingdom. wanted to do so many people commit suicide trunk. people who change that on a young age. i'm sorry i, i don't take steps. i cannot accept,

that's what you would need to cite specific biggest or your argument. i'm not, i'm not prepared to talk about specific cases and i do not accept people who change jane. that's that go on necessarily to commit suicide. like everything you know is an element of people that sell palm is an element of people that take their own lives. well, that happens across the board, or how long gay children actually are lesbian. children that claim that happens with transgender children with respect, is just simply not supported by the evidence. paula spain obviously wants to confront discrimination against the l. g. b t. community you've, you've brought up this point. i just want to, to expand on it. what about? yeah, to have a ready, physically change genders after much effort. is there a danger they're going to feel insulted at being recognized the same as someone who just as a declaration on paper stepping and let you respond to this in a moment at paula i mean, of course, until the society would be oppressive and you know and pool security types,

there are this, you know, problems. so that's why i think they should focus on lows against homophobia, against child before. yeah. that's the most important thing we have to do right now . but also, you know, we should, we should just help anyone, you know, who has for you no problem both before or after they change gender. you know, so they shouldn't be any trouble in, in talking about this because unfortunately, you know, maybe someone can dream about a certain type of life and then they can not have that. so i read about a lot of stories, a journalist from the time sheet. she made a bigger research and the she also find out that people who are de transition and they're not even welcome, you know, with the price because they kind of seen an enemy, you know, from the gender community. and of course, they saw for immensely from that. and this shouldn't be the case. in my opinion. we should all be empathic and think about the struggle of everyone. but let's talking

about, you know, teenagers and it's talking about, you know, young are those i personally, i don't think they are old enough for sure. we have to support them in the they feel like that definitely they should leave as they prefer. but changing your documents, you know, it's a big step also because his drop of bill, again, you want to let you do that only, you know, with their decision. but then they want the court say, you know, to be involved if you want to go back and make sure that you should be free to go back without the commission. i just want to finish with stephanie to that point, but a people who have transition, stephanie possibly feeling belittled. the effort that they've put in to doing that decision. you know, it can take many years for some people. and then all of a sudden they're in the same level, someone who's simply.