yes, this is just a quick missed issue with jenny william lou lou do do oh boy at the tone please. yeah, it's no, it's not you. but as it will, you can lose this month and it still to with the clear, with article with that flow out and i from the water dissertation yet, but we'll see later ah

ah ah, the the news ah,

there is a war on free speech across the globe, the ability to speak your mind freely is under tasks across the globe from china, new zealand, and yes, even in the land of the free united states. there is a battle over having your own opinions. big tech is partnering with big government to silence. those do not tow the party not. i'm sky no huge on today's show. we are going to give you the $360.00 view on the status of free speech around the globe. let's get started. ah, did you know the united nations universal declaration of human rights formerly granted by the laws of most nations, actually says a freedom of speech is a right and should be preserved. now, p survey from countries around the globe showed those countries in the western

hemisphere. we're actually more tolerant than countries in the eastern hemisphere, but there is a big difference between tolerance and the ability to act and say without any repercussions from the government. this could mean as an individual or as an entity, but the government is not the only one to fear, as mob rule and public opinion had become just as damaging and even dangerous. sadly, often manipulating the truth to fit in narrative being pushed by the elite who often turn out to be powerful in the government as well. but it's a manipulation of the truth peddled, which is what many governments are using to justify the restrictions on speech today. so it really is free anymore. joining us down for more on this topic is mila grier. she is a law student, the university of british columbia, as well as a journalist and podcast has, thanks for doing us me la. you know, the attacks on freedom speech are happening globally. just recently,

new zealand prime minister, just send out dern, gave a speech at the un calling for greater regulation of a freedom of speech. even referring at one point to certain forms of speech as weapons of war. what about that? can free speech actually be a weapon of war? and even if it is, do we have a right to regulate and censor it? who exactly has that right to government? well yeah, i found that to be a bit ironic with the use of the term war because what seems to happen and said, is that when there is critics of war or credit for certain policies in the war, it's not the speech that's necessarily the weapon of violence here, the violence is making punishing not speech or punishing the speech of critics of war. and you see even for instance, somebody may propose like, you know, i must makes his peace proposal on twitter. and suddenly, you know, he gets dragged through the mud and you know,

people are calling him an agent of the russian government, etc, etc. and this again is not necessarily punishing his free history speech. he's still free to go about and say what he wants, but is trying to send messages to people who don't have the same kind of power. that they will be smear that their livelihood will be impacted if they descent from the wherever. governments are just people in power as views on a mainstream issue like this. and so what's that? it's funny because they could be restricting of speech and the name of say, stopping violence is always in service of very violent policies abroad, such as army is extremely militia. and there have been critics of china who say that in the world most populated country, freedom of speech is a privilege and not a right. how do you view freedom of speech in china and other non western countries

around the globe? are people they're facing the same challenges? yeah, i mean it's interesting because for instance, as far as i know, i think they have tighter laws on things like or na, graphy and it also kind of makes you ask where, what are the bounds? it's free speech in general, does pornography countess free speech, or is that a sense or action and that is done in the name of the citizens. wow. but the problem with these things like china is it's genuinely difficult to know what the truth is in these countries. if they're saying enemy, country or a country that we want to undermine. the more unfree that we portray them, the more justification foreign policy leads find and trying to intervene in these countries. and so it's very hard to know. it's true. i've been told one day that you know, someone on china can't access any western social media,

and then i'll talk to a friend in china and instagram on without any issues. and so i think it's very hard to discern what's true and what not. but i definitely support anyone there that, you know, feels like they're constricted and thinks that the free speech was new reform as seems to clear that there are many countries in the world where freedom of speech is to say the least and divisive issue. but is the west a hypocrite in this regard? i mean, we see constant called by our media and government about the violations in other countries, especially nations, with differing foreign policy goals to the united states. but we see little condemnation, for instance, of saudi arabia or israel and their violations. and what about how people are banned off of the internet practically in the west for posey the regimes narrative? absolutely, and i think that's the power you know, that these are countries have to say, you know, i know that, you know,

this is critical and i'm still going to enforce this. i don't think that the u. s. government expects us to reasonably believe that saudi arabia is freer than iran, but it only demonize is one of the 2. and so basically it's very easy to use as a bludgeon, just as good governance used to be used as an excuse to interfere with the sovereignty of another country. rather than, you know, in concern with whether or not for governor ourselves well at home and your view, what are the limits of free speech, or are there any? yeah, i think that there are some forms of content, but don't need protection from free speech laws. so for instance, i child pornography or just any kind of a violent nonconsensual pornography, i think is fair game the craft down on. so for instance, there is a big crack down on hub recently for publishing content that was non consensual. so

i think anything that illegal or like the egg stream li, violent, you know, just stuff like that, i think is fair game. but i do recognize that it is hard to draw the line there. right? and i think this is something that people have been debating for a really long time, and i wish there was an easier sort of answer easier way to draw the line. but i think in general, we can say that illegal things that are illegal for good reason, like something the child pornography or say like isis, one of those isis gratuitous violence videos. i think those might be therapy. how do you see the future of her speech? who is going to win out in the long and the short term those you want to limit freedom of speech or the those who went to expand the horizons of what we can say and where we can exactly say it. yeah, and i don't want to end on a pessimistic. no,

but i do have to say that what's happening and knowing that what's happening is a problem. it's just not enough because the power that the sensors have is to say, we know that, you know, it's ridiculous for us to silence for the heads. and that's how powerful we are. we can silence you over something that is ridiculous and we can enforce the narrative and get you to repeat a narrative that is ridiculous. and so that to me seems to be the biggest issue they want. they, they, they like that for me is a huge problem in that. also the enforcers are not just the government, the enforces will be employers, them forces will be ability to access social media, accountability to access payments from pe, power or whatever. and so it really did just the ways that one can be censored or so vast. now that it's just not going in that direction. thank you. me le garad

to ground please. and for our viewers, stay tuned because we are going to be right back with our guest. disgusting. the attack on a freedom of speech around the world. here on the 360. you will be back after the break. ah the ah! with the discovery of the new world, at the end of the 15th century, there appeared at atlantic slave dre. the slave traders from european countries started building forth on the western coast of the african continent to transport

the african inhabitants to america. to be forced into hard labor until the middle of the 17th century, portugal had played the main role in this atrocious business. then great britain, france and the netherlands took the leadership for the span of 400 years of legal and illegal slave trade. about 17000000 people were forcefully shipped across the atlantic. not including those who died on the way do do unbearable living conditions. modern historians estimate that for each slave ship to america, there were 5 who died while captured during transportation and cruel obliteration of rebellion. this ruthless people tre, practice by the leading european countries, took away tens of millions of african lives. the organisation of united nations

classified the trans atlantic slave trade as one of the gravest human rights abuses in the history of humanity. this is the biggest act of deportation of people ever seen by mankind. ah, ah ah, ah oh, is your media a reflection of reality?

in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? high selection, whole community. are you going the right way? where are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is great? in the world corrupted, you need to descend. ah! so join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah, welcome back. this is the 360 view. we're here discussing the threats to premium of speech around the globe with journalist podcast her and law student at the

university of british columbia. mila grab me, let. let's go back to basics with definitions. what exactly is free speech? and is it a basic human? right? so free speech is enshrined as a right in a lot of countries and i think there's a good reason for that. so in canada and the u. s, for instance, we have assurances in your constitution and our charter that gives us sort of promised certainty where we can speak freely without legal sanction. and i think that's important to guarantee to our citizens. but i don't think that the right to free speech is simply and negative rights against governments. so day to day, the power that most people encounter is not the power of the government. it's the power that of their livelihoods, through people like employers, through the market and their colleague. so to me, genuine free speech is not simply this right that you hold against the government.

it's the protection against all sources of power in your life. where an opinion is not going to cost you your livelihood. and this is not fully enshrined in our country laws. we have some protection. so for instance, you can't get fired based on the religion you practice. but unfortunately, people still do get fired for speech that they do outside of the workplace. and so in that sense, 3 speech is not really fully enshrined or enough fully protected from all sources of power that can interfere with our speech. now why do you think freedom of speech is so important for a functioning democracy or a functioning society in general? so if my previous point about free speech impacting livelihood is correct, then what makes it important is that it gives us insights into multiple perspectives from various corners of society. so an environment where for instance, we can get fired for our views. we end up only having

a few people that are able to truly speak freely. so these are people, for instance, of higher job security likely for more privileged classes with less precarious income. so for instance, a tenured professor is going to have a lot more freedom than an average worker to speak their mind. and so this makes it so that we only hear perspectives from elite levels of society. and we get a skewed perception of what people want and how they feel about certain issues and levels of general discontent. we saw this happen in the u. s. 2015 election for instance, where everybody saw hillary clinton was going to win based on poway and based on how people were speaking about the election. but you just didn't hear voices from all levels of society. so i think it is genuinely a big issue for democracy is to be able to let everybody speak freely if they wish . now in the west, we do hear a lot about freedom of speech and attacks on it. let's look at the united states,

1st and foremost, the concept is actually enshrined in their constitution. how do you view a freedom of speech in the united states compared with the rest of the world? is united states better or worse off and where is that trending in your opinion? yeah, i, so as a canadian law student, i was, i would have previously said that the united states is quite impressive in terms of free speech protections. especially for instance, it's way more difficult to sue for. it was way more difficult to see for defamation in the u. s. so it was harder to say silence people the, the court using defamation law. however, there's been 2 cases in the u. s. recently. that seemed to kind of have loose and not so there was outs. jones recently had to pay, i think almost a $1000000000.00 and amber heard as well, had to pay quite a bit of money and damages more down more in damages. and i've ever seen in

a canadian defamation case, and so we're, whatever you think of either of those people because free speech again is not really, it's not about protecting people that you like per se, right? but whatever you think of either of them, i found that quite surprising in terms of the outcomes. i think both the us and canada are not going in great directions as far as free speech is concerned. and not just because of the defamation cases, but because there are more and more entities that are able to silence speech. so we don't just have the government saying, i'm going to imprison you for have the i'm going to charge you for that. where loosening defamation laws, tech companies have a control over your participation in the virtual public square. there's a huge social media monopoly. so if you're banned up twitter, youtube, and all these major sites, you're not, your voice is not really being heard. and it doesn't matter that the government is not going to arrest you for that. so the government now is only one among many

potential threats. and that to me seems to be like a more worrying direction. now back in 2020 as a presidential candidate, the former vice president joe biden actually said he would revoke section 230 protections and hold a social media sites liable for their content. in the past couple years, we have seen a lot of political pressure on facebook and other social media sites, all to monitor their content. and we have even seen, quote, unquote whistleblowers come out against facebook and other social media sites, detailing the spread of coal. this information and the harmful effects of social media. now we can all agree that social media can be detrimental to your mental and emotional well being. but is that what the government cares about? or is this just really a push to have greater control over free speech on social media? yeah, i think this is very disturbing trying to be charitable. i think that, you know, some people in government might think they're genuinely doing

a good thing and saving people for misinformation. but others probably know that transforming social media companies from a mere conduit to a publisher is dangerous. and companies obviously also want to avoid as much liability as possible. so this is just going to create an encourage more sense or is behavior and not necessarily in favor of true, just in favor of who is going to challenge the liability or make, make the company is more likely to experience liability. and so none of this i really think is out of a concern for emotional or mental well being. unfortunately, i do think that it is very disturbing and something that needs to be pushed back again. how do you see this trend developing? what receive a more pressure on social media, while the government actually went out and be able to regulate what is allowed and what is not allowed in terms of speech on social media,

i want to go in step further. how can the companies resist and do they even want to resist? but if its accompanies, what about the individuals? how can they resist speech policing on social media? yeah, i'm not even sure that the winner is just the government in so much as it is the powerful, powerful people who benefit from the prevailing consensus and the consensus that's being enforced through the sensors. so this definitely includes governments, but it also includes those who, financially pressure and benefit from certain government endeavors. we see this a lot with foreign policy and especially r t can definitely attach to this this, the censorship of a foreign policy. critics services the government, but not all the profiteers from this are the say, the american government. there is also, you know, weapons manufacturers who want us to continue preparing for war or potential war. and so i'm not convinced that companies want to resist either. unfortunately,

as long as it's impacting their profits, i think they use these to make it seem like it's a righteous said, if pe power is say, banning someone or criticizing nato and calling them of that and they're thinking, oh, we're fighting this holy war against. and so i think it incentivizes companies instead to say no, their virtue rather than them necessarily just being at the mercy of a government who's telling them who the sensor is. foreign president, brock obama has also recently said that freedom of speech does not apply to social media companies. is he right? i wasn't even sure what i meant by it. to be honest. but what i, what i, i think sensors want to do is to transform the idea of social media as a conduit or transmitter of speech into a publisher. and then this way they can be punished simply for allowing

controversial speech. so for instance, you can, where could potentially be held liable or the stir defamation if somebody to frame somebody on twitter. and so if president obama wants to take away those, those protections, or just the idea that these media companies are not, or social media just simple conduit. and that's going to have long reaching consequences. and it's not going to be beneficial for the average person. thank you . mila garcia. now if you are living in a country which says you have freedom of speech, but there is an active debate on what freedom of speech is in present day. you most likely have already lost pieces of it. now, earlier this year to see a paper said, the difficult part is identifying what is hatred and what is freedom of speech. i

think just an important question is who gets to be the one who determines this and what is universal standard? the unpopular but really honest truth is there isn't one and never has been. this hasn't changed. what has change, however, is standards in society and the ability to spread thoughts and information. both can be very damaging. it's very scary to me when a person in government tries to limit the speech of anyone, especially their opposition, both behind the scenes and in public. only the most abrasion would tell the people to their face. they don't believe their opinions should be expressed, and they don't want others to hear it. rather, the label of this information is slapped on, thus demon the information and the person speaking it worthy of ridicule and dismissal. however, the best way to read miss information is the truth and should be every individual's responsibility to counter. well,

that's if you still had the freedom to do so. i'm going to use the 360 view with the news you need to hear. thank for watching. ah huh, ah, what do you with somebody may be the person to the listing, so when would you think would be a almost done with a live with? oh, just a little can to me it says he's done. william, i didn't mind you children version,

you know, for them to push on a sister. so start with a no idea to a certain way with the only thing that oh, the 1st thing it was they switched simple blankets. he said the because it's a voicemail, but a union simply become no exclusions. now here's the thing he is slim with is suggesting is when we get home

with a rec center and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my, your show seriously. why watch something that's so different opinions that you won't get anywhere else work if it pleases you to have the state department, the cia weapons, bankers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead, i change and whatever you do, don't watch my show stay main street because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact. but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way ah, with business and you were cleaned

with americans. grey you, when you wrote, who didn't go through it is just such an article. and i was feeling in for you was just such a short, a different student info with you throw in the with them on the pro, you're still there with yours, with jewish in the longer your bush is just a push to sustainable mon because news, news, your personal coupon code, i don't know who's tv i know for the dollars a year with you used to play in finances. come on both with

don. yes, for public authority stay russian troops have almost completely encircled the ukrainian house on a vocal adar as intense battles in the area. continue for kena, faso and molly joined forces to counter the ongoing threat of terrorism and made frustration at french forces failure to topple military insurgencies in the region . and in a prank called veteran u. s. foreign policy hall, john bolton, warren's european allies against the go shading with russia. that's the mid western claims of moscow's unwillingness to talk with

.