with the greeks as opposed to the turks because of the relationship there. so it's a, it's a, it shows increasing act activities, especially in the libya and the north africa. and that it, those areas are just right for tensions. several mainstream media outlets have warned of quotes. russian misinformation across africa comes amid growing times between moscow on the continent on the west failure to impose its agenda. oh, the report was mentioned luc michelle, a belgian political activists created all the rest of the in network with the media claim. his website disseminate, quote, russia, public gowns on the continent and is financed by moscow. the spot michelle's saying he has no links to the kremlin. well, that comes amid the western agenda losing popularity in africa. again, a fancy has expelled the french on buses after molly did the same a few months ago, became also also blacklisted. the un coordinator in the country,

france has withdrawn its troops from molly. germany has said it was completely trips from the whole region by 2024. with the independence africa journalists told us the west is not in a position to accuse any wall of misinformation. russia and an african countries you've always had that form of his sheet that binds us together. they can be no justification for the ways to speak about so called the russian propaganda african continent. if we're honest with each other and we checked the, i'd issue the with the $400.00 pushing propaganda not only in africa, but throughout the world. you know, i mean we, we know the ministers of the ca and how the u. s. has been funding many, many, many journalists, and there's been funding for many, many, many media outlets throughout, throughout the world. we are going to see in the next few weeks or months, a very well coordinated smear campaign against russia. we're going to see

a lot of coordinated media tags and propaganda when he, thanks by a company here in arte international, this friday will be back at the top of the ah, [000:00:00;00] with

with l look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at that point obviously is to grace trust, rather than fear i would like to take on various job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with

a robot must protect its own existence with oh, 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 to new zealand. and yes, even in the land of the free united states. there they battle over having your own opinion. big tech is partnering with big government to silence those. did you not tow the party line? i'm try now. he's known today's show we're going to give you the $350.00 view on the status of free speech around the globe. let's get started. or did you know the united nations universal declaration of human rights,

formerly granted by the laws of most nations, actually says freedom of speech as a bright and should be preserved. now, a pew 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. 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 have become just as damaging and even dangerous, sadly, often manipulating the truth to fit a narrative being pushed by the elite who often turn out to be powerful and 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, jacinto dern gave a speech to 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 to government? well yeah, i found not 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 screening 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 the, it's funny because they can be restricting of speech and the name of say, stopping violence is always in service of these very violent policies abroad, such as army. these extreme, this militia,

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 the balance is. 3 speech in general does pornography countess free speech or is that a sense or action? and that is done in the name of the citizen. well, 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, i'll be 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 on instagram, on 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 was me 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 and 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 demonizes one of the 2. and so basically it's very easy fries 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 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 vi xtreme 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, 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 piece for free speech? who is going to win out and the long and the short term those you want to limit the

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 and 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 you for the heads. and that's how powerful we are . we can silence you over something that is ridiculous and we can enforce a 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, the enforcers will be ability to access social media accounts,

ability to access payments from pe, power or whatever. and so it really the, 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 grab to ground, please. and for our viewers, stay tuned because we are going to be right back with our guest discussing the attack on a freedom of speech around the world. here on the $360.00, we will be back after the break. ah, the oh, in the year of 1954,

the united states of america engaged in warfare against the people of vietnam. the white house supported the corrupt puppet government of southern vietnam. in 1965 americans began their invasion following the aim to defeat the forces of vietnamese patriots. the pentagon was confident that the victory would be on the american side due to its military superiority. however, the vietnamese turn this war into a total hell for the occupants. unable to cope with guerrillas, the american army started blanket bombing alongside using chemical weapons and napalm which burnt all alive. the village of my lay wearing 1969 american soldiers killed 504 civilians, including 210 children, became a tragic symbol of this war. all in all, during the whole period of this conflict,

the usa dropped on vietnam more than $6000000.00 tons of bombs, which is 2 and a half times as much as on germany during the 2nd world war. in 973, the american army under the pressure of the rebels, withdrew from vietnam. and only 2 years later did the puppet regime in saigon fall . however, the vietnamese paid a high price for their freedom. more than 1000000 vietnamese people became the victims of american aggressors. long when i was sure seemed wrong when i just don't know me well. yes, to shape out disdain becomes the advocate. an engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves will depart,

we choose to look for common ground. hold me is the aggressor to day. i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today. russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. a number that's constantly growing. i figure which of the problem was the question, as we speak on the bill in your senior mostly mine the we're, we're ship, we're banding all imports of russian oil and gas news. i say we're suffering the price for it. i know they said she was low with the letter came in pretty good regarding joe biden and imposing these sanctions on russia. jo has destroyed the american economy, so there's your boomerang self. ah,

welcome back. this is a 360 view. we're here discussing the threats to pre dom of speech around the globe with journalist podcast her in law student at the university of british columbia. mila, or, i 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 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,

just 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'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 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. t. then 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? 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 sue for defamation in the u. s. so it was harder to say silence people 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 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 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 speech where 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 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 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 quote with 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 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 from 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, i really think is 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 was even 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 that if it's a company's for about the individual of 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 the censorship of a foreign policy critic services the government. but not all the profiteers from this are the say, the american government. there's 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 the use these to make it seem like it's a righteous, say, if pay pal is say, banning someone or criticizing nato and calling them of that and they're thinking, oh, we're fighting this holy war against student. 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 wear could potentially be held liable or the for 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 i'm 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 as 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 never has been, this hasn't changed. what has change, however, 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 any one, especially their opposition, both behind the scenes and in public. only the most brazen 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 miss information 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, as if he still had the freedom to do so, i'm going to use the 360 view with the news you need to hear. thank for watch huh. ah, i am rick sanchez and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, do not watch my new show. certainly why watch something but so different. felicity opinion that you won't get anywhere else. look of it please or do you have the state department? the c, i a weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. i changed and whatever. if you don't want my show stay mainstream,

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 thing ah, yes. now you need yes. it's typically near to melting. you know them with the new book that probably the next issue with ways w a,

[000:00:00;00] a quote on my chair. the water doesn't want that much extra mom, but i know it's a bit hole. ah, tanya is republican ortiz, a russian troops of nearly an thing called the ukrainian, held a dog. i'm at a renewed offensive in don't, but he was like whatever if states, blanket and council, his visit to beijing following hysteria and american media correspondence, chinese weather balloon, playing into us as space and legal documents claim. a british intelligence project