Venezuela's Chavez To Limit Internet Freedom 452
terets1 writes "Reuters reports that Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chavez, issued a call on Saturday for 'internet controls' to prevent rumors and inaccurate reporting from spreading. He specifically cited a case in which a website incorrectly reported that a senior minister had been assassinated and kept the story up for two days. Many of Venezuela's opposition movements use social networking sites to communicate. It is not apparent at this time exactly what kind of controls Chavez has in mind or whether those controls will be similar to the controls in Iran that have been used to silence opposition movements. Chavez said, 'The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms.'"
Not according to Sean Penn (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela [guardian.co.uk]
Wonder who is classified a dictator in his mind...
Re:Way to go (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not insightful (Score:1, Interesting)
I am sure we will see some type of oppressive censorship in the relatively near future. Anyone that does not believe this probably is not paying attention to who is in control of the various governments within the United States.
That's crap. The US government is the de facto definition of gridlock, ineffectiveness and partisan pettiness. They wouldn't even agree on a bill to give themselves the winning lottery numbers without bickering, squabbling and turning it into a pissing match. And then they'd anonymously block it, filibuster it and shit can it. If there's one thing the lot of them are missing these days is purpose.
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government: When there was a coup, and Chavez was kidnapped, that station said he had resigned. When a million people took to the streets, waving copies of their constitution saying that the president can't be removed like that, that TV station said that the streets were quiet and the people were happy of the change of government.
So when it came time for their license to be renewed, years later, they were denied. They didn't close down, they're still on cable, and on youTube, and they had public viewings in parks on giant screens. But they didn't get their license renewed after openly supporting an unconstitutional coup.
And people say "OMG Chavez is a dictator that closed down all the private TV stations!!!!", because that's the way the propaganda in their country wants them to think. *sigh*
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Interesting)
Was that "Brainwashed nutjob" directed at me, or at Scrameustache? It's not clear.
I'm the one questionning the propaganda, therefore I'm the brainwashed nutjob.
I countered "ZOMG CHAVEZ SHUT DOWN ALL PRIVATE TV" with facts to the contrary. Clear sign of brainwashing nutjobbery that, presenting facts.
Speaking of facts, so you were there, that doesn't make the rest of that previous post any less unintelligible. So, WHAT were you on about?
Re:Way to go (Score:1, Interesting)
You got to be kidding. The issue here, which I pointed out in the post to which you replied, is defamation. Chavez complained that a website posted completely unfounded and made up allegations of how a cabinet minister was assassinated. It's defamation, pure and simple. That's what Chavez is complaining about. How exactly do you jump from "defamation is a crime and must be punished" to "OMG he wants to kill online forums!" ?
Your accusation is amusing, to say the least. If you happen to live in a civilized society then your legal system will consider defamation to be a crime and will punish those who engage in spreading lies with the intention to inflict damage. We get routine news reports on how regular, common people like you and me use the legal system to defend themselves from other people who do just that on online forums and social networking sites. Do those people want to "kill online forums" ? Does that make them dictators? Obviously not.
Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Interesting)
>While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).
True, but a strawman. Corporations rarely hold the broad scope of powers that governments do. Parents ditto. (Consumers can choose to not buy from a corporation they dislike; children can typically run away from abusive parents and seek refuge with neighbours and family. Seekign refuge from government is another matter entirely as history will show you.). Also, both of the aforementioned rarely their their so-called dicatatorial powers to the excesses that governments do, especially government led by politically-religious folks ala Charvez.
How is that a strawman? The point was not the scope or extent of the power. The point was the arbitrary way that it is exercised and the fact that justification of its use is an afterthought if it is provided at all. It's the difference between "because I am in charge and I said so" versus "because I believe it's the most reasonable way to proceed, and here are my factual reasons explaining why I think so; please let me know if new evidence comes to light."
That distinction can be made whether the situation is "do we execute this possible terrorist?" or whether it's "how long should Junior be grounded?" So again, if your disproportionate concern for the scope of power has anything to do with the way authority is justified, or somehow makes my reasoning a strawman, you have not made your case.
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Interesting)
And we shouldn't dismiss it as perfectly ok just because lots of countries have suffered from oppressive governments in the past.
If anything we should learn from our own history and the mistakes made in our own past and oppose suppression of free speech from the get go.
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Three words for you: free speech zones.
You make a good point. Fortunately, on those occasions when University free speech zones (the setting in which they are most commonly applied) have been challenged in court, they have usually been ruled unconstitutional.
That being said, it is interesting that the people who implement these "free speech zones" are those who claim to be the strongest proponents of unfettered free speech. They are, also, from whom many of the members of the Obama Administration have been drawn.
parent is not a troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Parent post is correct and is not a troll. Everybody who dares to refute any of the western propaganda against Chavez is labeled a troll. I don't give a rip about it other than how easily suckered and ignorant people are about their anti-Chavez positions. He is not a dictator; he is against the USA's empire and that is why there is a big movement against him and his attempt to spread the revolt to other nations. One can't even call the USA an empire without people getting irrational.
Re:That's the plan (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=344086 [laht.com]
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/601 [venezuelanalysis.com]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/07/something-fishy-in-venezuela/?feat=home_editorials [washingtontimes.com]
Dec 2002 to Mar 2003: Disrupting and attempting destruction of the oil industry, depriving everyone of fuel. Most of the saboteurs were fired and the government acquired more control of the industry.
Dec 2002 to Mac 2003: Owners lock-out attempting to force Chavez a resign, did nothing against the government, deprived people from food and basic consumables. It showed the dangers of leaving everything in private hands, the government started implementing state owned production, distribution, and now retail of goods. In short, backfired horribly to opposition interests.
Dec 2004: Opposition parties decide to retire all their candidates to the National Assembly, as a form of "protest", then proceed to cry the following years for not having any representation; get a little breath from former Chavez supporters turning sides (cheating their voters), but still almost non existent presence in the unicameral legislative branch.
2005 etc: Call to block streets near your home. Of course this works mostly in opposition zones, which makes them self isolated for a couple of days, rest of the country ignores them and lives normally.
2006+ attempts to try Ukraine style "orange" revolt (The Albert Einstein Institute method used in many countries) to use "pacific" methods to overthrown ("anti-us") governments. Unfortunately the Venezuelan "students" didn't get the "pacific" part too well, and ended igniting fires, destroying property and even using firearms, losing what little support from the civic society might have left in them.
I could go on, but you either get it or won't at this point. Opposition fails because of its own stupid mistakes, funny thing is they get openly funded by US Tax payers, in the form of National Endowment for Democracy (bi-partisan institution to fund "pro-american" groups in the world) USAID and such. http://www.venezuelafoia.info/english.html [venezuelafoia.info]
If the USA used a fraction of the funds they waste all over the world funding parties and movements, and instead used it to solve their own social domestic issues, the effects of the economic crash would have been all gone by know, and wouldn't need people crashing planes against public buildings to show their discontent.
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing is to use your freedom of speech to oppose the government and another is to push for a coup, that is what those tv companies did. Even in the USA, if you publicly express your desire to kill the president you could end with a visit from the US Secret Service, and you could bet that if a TV station repeatedly called for the overthrow of Bush on his time or Obama now, they would end with their broadcasting license revoked by the FCC.
Now, before you think that I am a chavista tool, I will list what I think are Chávez shortcomings:
- He doesn't know when to keep is mouth shut.
- After 10 years, the security in Caracas hasn't improved noticeably
- His government has been weak in the fight against corruption
- Lack of provision in the design of the electrical grid of the country, that was under rolling blackouts.
- Inflation
Now, about his government successes:
- Increaced greatly the medical care coverture.
- A successful campaign against analfabetism.
- A big push toward education.
- The strengtening of the OPEP that helped to increase noticeably the governments income from the oil.
- The new metro line (or lines) in Caracas.
- The steady recovery of real wages under his government, despite the inflation.
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Interesting)
That's only half the story though. The "press" in that country is rich, and connected to other countries. They managed to stay "just out of reach" during the last coup attempt, but it's an open secret they planned, funded and used their TV and media to hide what was happening from the citizens. They are the ones that announced "success" of the coup and had the USA on speed dial to accept.
These guys are far more corrupt than Chavez is.... their control of media makes guys like Hurst and Murdoch look like absolute amateurs. They're all buddies and all in on what gets published and most of the courts are in their pocket too. (like if Cheney and is PNAC could ever get their way) If it came back that somebody like Google's founders directly manipulated an election by tanking searchs for candidates they didn't like or programming Google searches for only THEIR agenda there would be big trouble over here... although it's technically not illegal. Imagine if NBC/ABC/FOX got together on voting day and simply lied about the results...simply started saying at noon that their guy was "winning". Look at the chaos the 2000 Bush/Gore vote caused simply because they "reported" a winner before actually COUNTING the votes. These guys have the balls to pull that crap on purpose and enough judges and generals in their pockets not to go to prison/or worse.
Nationalized media was the "least" Chavez could do in response to flat out rebellion. If he had any aspirations as a real dictator and not a good leader he would have simply had the top 1% richest and all his generals put against the wall within the week....and broadcast THAT on their precious "free media". he DIDN'T do that and tried to let the people use their courts to handle things shows character.
Like his politics or not, he is the scariest leader in the western hemisphere because he really is trying to use proper government channels and trying to help his people, not just the upper class. The rich and connected didn't toss him aside when the USA said "jump", his people stuck up for him, that makes him untouchable now. There's no UN "grounds" to start a war against him like Iraq or Afghanistan.Messing with him at this point is an act of unprovoked war and I'd be certain he has the names of people in the US to back him up. He's out there, trying to groom his neighbors that are under threat of being deposed by drug loads and the CIA so they don't have to constantly be afraid either.
He's trying to abolish the Monroe Doctrine the US government has kept up the entire 1900's that Latin/South America is our "banana republic" to boss around.
Re:Question ANYTHING you hear about Venezuela (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah. Thanks for that piece of info. So yet another piece of spin?
Like I said, can't trust anything you hear from there. Not even the stuff told to you by people telling you to not believe anything you hear about there...