can also serve in a limited way with ukraine, but i see it aimed more at the middle east and north africa. it certainly can be turned around to see what's going on in turkey. and of course, you've got to go through the dark nails to get up to the black sea area where you're going to run into ultimately run into ukraine. but it's, it's, it, intelligence expansion for, let's say, terrorist build up in africa are going to be a very, very important there's, it's well known that the united states to the united states that russia seeks to expand in, in africa. so that's going to be and, and of course the, the russians, mediterranean, and the fleets traverse that area. so it's a highly strategic area. and of course the relationship between the u. k and the u

. s. especially in intelligence is part of the 5 eyes arrangement that they have, which shows their real close. this is for all kinds of intelligence gathering. so now i see more from the intelligence gathered parts of the so called special relationship to the u. k. so probably says it's how it's with america. not just before you go, michael. one last question. do you think that this potential leak of documents which again we've been unable to to verify. and so far, you know, hasn't come into the need. does america or britain do you think it would affect american plans for cyprus? is very much an open secrets now. well, you've made it pretty much an open secret, as, as the classified u. k. it's hard to ignore when you see all the build up going on and obviously raises questions. but it's,

it's like most worth up in britain where we have intelligence gathering. again, it just shows how the u. s. and the u. k. closely worked, coordinate on intelligence given, given that relationship and so, and for the brits to let us come into their facilities, i think is it's not unusual, but it's certainly might suggest that the us focus in, in some respects is oriented increasingly toward africa. turkey, because you got turkey, you got turkey and excuse me. and the greeks that are, that are also within and especially over cyprus as well as other other areas. so that area is a very, very serious location for the united states. now to begin monitoring as well as the

breadth and you have, you have also the, the united states now trying to build up its military presence with the greeks as opposed to the turks. yeah. because of the relationship there. so it's a, it's, it shows increasing act activities, especially in the libya in the north africa. and that, it, those areas are just the right for the tensions. certainly. yeah, we're sending the term are currently going on the micro of former senior pentagon security analysts, as always, thank you very much for your time today. i show your thoughts for those. i my my pleasure. thank you. ah, the latest round of youth sanctions eyes now for thought outlet to see the activity of his production office in germany. but the german language center will continue to operate on broadcast internationally from its headquarters here in moscow. in

the statements r t d says the move came as a result of the betrayal of fundamental rights and freedoms. by the european union on the gym and governments. r t d e productions regretfully announces the decision to cease the company's journalistic activities in germany. our tv productions has faced immense pressure from government media, businesses and others who have sought to curtail as journalists at work and to silence the voice as it brings to public attention. the e. u. in permitting the position of sanctions on media freedoms has shown that the very values claimed to define the core of its existence are without any substance. the freedom of the press to operate without hindrance does not exist in germany to day. the c d protection office located in berlin house created a wide range of contents for our german language channels. that's how the faith demands pressure ever since it was launched in december 2021. in early february, a german satellites operates a claim to todd no license to broadcast our channel for the start of versus war

ukraine. a year ago, your authorities took precedence a step to shut down off in europe. in march, a building code cited with germany, media regulator in bonding our child in the country. off these german language stream on youtube was also the same date was launched. according to our t d. functions affects the cuts off oxygen for our remaining stuff inside germany. for me on any those stories as well as all the latest updates, all t dot com is your place to go. that's all for me peter, scott. but nicky aaron will be taking over the top of the hour with today's top stories. thanks the company, the ah,

there is a war on free speech across the globe. the ability to speak your mind freely is under attack across the globe from china, new zealand. and yes, even in the land of the free united states. there's a battle over having your own opinions. big tech is partnering with big government to silence those. did you not tow the party life? i'm sorry. i know he's on today's show, we're going to give you the 360 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 a mob rule and public opinion had become just as damaging and even dangerous, sadly, often manipulating the truth to fit a narrative being pushed by the leads 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 joining us, neela. you know, the attacks on freedom speech are happening globally. just recently, new zealand prime minister, just send the durn, gave

a speech at the un calling for greater regulation of 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 and who exactly has that right. the government. well yeah, i found that to be a bit ironic with the use of the term war because what seems to happen inside 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. the governments are just people in power as views on a mainstream issue like this. and so what's the, it's funny because they can be restricting of speech and the name of say, stopping violence is always in service. very violent policies abroad, such as army. these extreme, this militia, and there have been critics of china who say that in the world's 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 count is 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 on free 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 access any western social media, and then i'll talk to a friend in china and instagram on that without any issues. and so i think it's

very hard to discern what's true with no watch, but i definitely support anyone there that, you know, feels like they're constricted and thinks that the free speech laws need reform and 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 call out 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 a critical and i'm still going to enforce that. 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 priest 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 in concern with whether or not for governing 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, child pornography or just any kind of a violent nonconsensual pornography. i think it's fair game to crack down on. so for instance, there is a big crack down on how recently for publishing content that was non consensual. so i think anything that illegal or like the extra really 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, easy way to draw the line. but i think in general, we can say that illegal things that are illegal for good reason, like something like childhood odyssey or say like isis, one of those isis gratuitous violence videos. i think those might be therapy. how do you see the picture of free 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. 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 enforcers will be employers, enforcers, will be ability to access social media accountability to access payment 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 a good direction. thank you. me to grab 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. we will be back after the break. ah, the ah! the claims of the king of the belgians leopold the 2nd to the congo were finally authorized by the leading european countries in 18. 85 in the very heart of the african continent. a state under the rule of the belgian monarch was declared since

the beginning, the congo free state was total, may him for the local population and functioned as a universal concentration camp. the majority of the population, including women and children, were forced to work on the rubber plantations. those who failed to fulfill their quota were beaten and mutilated. to keep the congolese people under control. the king set up the so called forest bleak which were punitive detachments that cast terror on the captured country and its inhabitants, fearing that their subordinates would simply waste bullets hunting for wild animals . the officers demanded that the soldiers gave an answer for every bullet used, and as proof presented a chop hand of an african, it was not uncommon when trying to justify the use of the ammunition. the colonist amputated the hands of not only those who were dead, but also of those who were kept alive. the atrocious exploitation of the congo turned into a real genocide. in only 20 years,

the policy of the belgians led to the death of nearly 10000000 people alongside the holocaust, that genocide of the congo population is considered to be one of the grimmest pages in the history of mankind. when i was shooting wrong, when old fools just don't move any yes to see our disdain, he comes to an engagement equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. with

awe. welcome back. this is a perfect view. we're here discussing the threats to freedom of speech around the globe, where journalist podcast her and law student at the university of british columbia . mila, or i am me. 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 at the 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 in our charter that gives us sort of promised certainty where we can speak freely without legal sanction. and i think that's something 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, just through the market in 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's 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 pulling 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? you know, 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 seem to kind of have loose and not

so there was alex 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 that 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, rape, 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 these 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 is 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's 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 a 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 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 i think is very disturbing trying to be charitable. busy i think that, you know, some people in government might think they're genuinely doing a good thing and saving people for missed information. 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 and 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, 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 will 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 company's 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? and 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 at r t can definitely attest to this this the censorship of 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'll use these to make it seem like it's a righteous, say, if pay power is say, banning someone or criticizing nato and calling them of that and they're thinking, or 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 the government, is telling them who the sensor is. foreign president, brock obama has also recently said the 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 t where could potentially be held liable or the star 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 assuming or just simple conduit, then that's going to have long reaching consequences. and i'm not going to be beneficial for the average person. thank you. me, la 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, the ceo paper said the difficult part is identifying what is hatred and what is freedom of speech. i think just as important question and 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 misinformation is slapped on,

thus demon the information and the person speaking it worthy of ridicule and dismissal. however, the best way to read misinformation is the truth. and should be every individual's responsibility to counter. now 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. thanks for watching. huh. news with ah

ah don't, yes, we're public all for the same russian troops of 1000000 circle, the ukrainian held town of oglethorpe within 10. i think in the area with a secretary blinking, reportedly cancelled a visit to china off to our chinese where the balloon and to think you with documents came a british intelligence context, find on palestinian refugee group previously alleged to provide a drawing for this account for the ongoing threat of terrorism, my frustration at french board is failure to tackle militants insurgency in the region.