Bad precedent in Venezuela

[dannofoot]

Chavez to shut down opposition TV
Hugo Chavez gives a speech at Fuerte Tiuna in Caracas, 28 December
The move has been called a grave violation of freedom of expression
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he will not renew the licence for the country's second largest TV channel when it expires in March 2007.

~Snip~

Mr Chavez said the channel was "at the service of coups against the people, against the nation, against national independence, against the dignity of the republic".

The channel is among a number of private TV and radio networks that in recent years have strongly criticized Mr Chavez' government and favoured the opposition.

~Snip~

The press freedom campaign group, Reporters Without Borders, said the proposed move would be a grave violation of freedom of expression in Venezuela.

RCTV is one of the country's oldest channels and began broadcasting in 1953.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6215815.stm

Some may flame me, some will nod with me in agreement...Chavez is a budding, if not already legitimate, despot...

[Solon]

1. Uhm, you do know they SUPPORTED a coup, right?

Which, by all standards of law, worldwide, is considered illegal, period. They should have had their license to broadcast pulled in 2002.

[sandnsea]

3. Uhm, you do know Chavez attempted a coup

Yet managed to come back and win an election, because nobody outlawed all opposition voices.

[Solon]

4. Do we always have to go over this...

Perez was later impeached and removed from office due to corruption and the brutal suppression of protests in Caracas, and Chavez was pardoned for his actions, which, by the way, killed no one. This is far and away much different than what happened in 2002.

[sandnsea]

5. So.What.

In 1992, Chavez attempted a coup. He would not have been able to come back and fight the government if every avenue to do that had been outlawed. Pointing out Chavez' flaws has absolutely nothing to do with Perez. Chavez should not be outlawing opposition media. Period.

[Solon]

6. First, its not outlawing opposition media...

The broadcast license for ONE station is not going to be renewed, so they can't use the airwaves, which are regulated by government anyways. This is out of what, 3 or 4 stations, all of which, excepting the public station, are members of the opposition. The newspapers are still free to print pretty much anything they want, the other stations are still going to broadcast, etc. I feel this is another case of a "mountain out of a molehill" response by the opposition.

[dannofoot]

13. "First they came for RCTV..."

"...and I said nothing..."

Like you say, it's only one out what...3 OR 4 STATIONS?

Never mind that it's the oldest...or just one of "3 or 4" stations...There are plenty of newspapers, right?

Despots go for the main media outlets first. Newspapers (there are now hundreds in Iraq, voicing the opinions of literally hundreds of political factions) are practically meaningless to a government. When you control the airwaves, you effectively control the people. At least that's what we've learned over the last 40 years.

You don't REALLY think that any newspaper in America controls any sort of opinion, do you?

[originalpckelly]

15. True, they always come for the extreme opposition, then they come...

for those on their own side, who voice slightly different opinions from that of the leader. It always happens. Unfortunately, it's Venezuela's version of events that have played out countless times in history.

[Judi Lynn]

28. It was due to his attempt to get Carlos Andres Perez outta office which

made him a hero to the Venezuelan masses in the first place.

Perez doubled the cost of their transportation, and other vital items, then, when they ran into the streets to protest, he instructed his military to gun them down, killing upwards of 3000 people in the bloody massacre named "El Caracazo."

Yeah, it's a crime to try to overthrow a bloody U.S. power-mad, bloodthirsty demon puppet thief, all right. You really know your Venezuelan history.

The massive majority of the population of Venezuela saw CARLOS ANDRES PEREZ, who pilfered millions and millions of Venezuelans' money, and was arrested and found guilty of corruption and embezzlement, and put in prison for a time, as well as house arrest.

The Venezuelan oligarchy still loves Perez who calls out for Hugo Chavez to be shot down "like a dog," regularly, as one of the _Bush family friends. You have cast your lots with the very people the majority of Venezuelans despise.

[sandnsea]

35. And how did he get elected?

After he got out of jail? If Perez had past similar laws, Chavez would have been locked up repeatedly and would still be in jail.

Your anti-US rant is quite spirited, but has nothing to do with the point. Chavez shouldn't be passing laws that would have prevented him from taking office if they'd been in place after he decided to challenge the govt through the electoral process.

[Judi Lynn]

39. Don't try to learn much about the subjects you discuss, do you?

Hugo Chavez was pardoned by another Venezuelan President. I believe it was mentioned on this thread already.

[sandnsea]

41. Wow. Again. SO WHAT

The point is, if it had been illegal to oppose any given President - Chavez would never have gotten out of jail and never would have been able to campaign at all. It would have been illegal. He's preventing people from doing exactly what he did. You can create 1000 diversions if you want, but that's the bottom line.

[Selatius]

65. He was pardoned, and the people who would've jailed him were sacked by the people themselves.

I think that was what Judi Lynn was aiming at.

If CNN had broadcasted 24/7 that Al Gore should be shot if he had won in 2000, then you're saying CNN should be left free to broadcast advocating sedition?

[sandnsea]

70. If Al Gore had taken the Presidency in 2000

Do you think he should have shut down Fox for its blatant manipulation of the election, and arrested every person in the country who went to Florida to participate in what was basically a bloodless coup?

Chavez attempted a coup in 1992 himself. He went on to win the Presidency because he had access to media because they hadn't been outlawed. That's the point. You cannot write or enforce laws based on whether you agree with political ideology. Chavez attempted a coup, which everyone points out is illegal. But never mind law in that case. And never mind that Perez has been gone since 1993. And never mind that nobody tried to ban Chavez from speaking since his release in 1994. Ridding a country of opposition is not democracy, and that's what Chavez has systematically done since he took office. What was done by others before him does not justify him doing the same things or worse. That is not placing the rule of law over the rule of a particular personality. It's dangerous and of all people who shouldn't support it, it's free speech liberals.

[Selatius]

71. FOX wasn't guilty of calling for the assassination of Al Gore. Not the same thing.

That's not the same case down there in Venezuela with the corporate news outlets. Try seeing how long CNN stays on the air if it called for Bush's assassination.

What Chavez did in 1992 is null and void. As Judi Lynn pointed out, Perez' successor pardoned Chavez, and the last time I checked, the president has the power to pardon people under both the old constitution and the new constitution in Venezuela. It's little different than the US president having the power to pardon people. Because the pardon was given within the bounds of the law, whatever crime Chavez was guilty of in 1992 was automatically expunged from the record as well just as it is here in the US, except in cases where the pardon is limited to simply reducing a sentence.

[sandnsea]

80. Null and void?

So if some other President comes along and says Perez wasn't guilty of corruption, does that make it true? I don't understand how you guys can just spin anything around in your head in order to support Chavez. It's like Bush supporters, it really is.

Lara:
"In years 2002, 2003 and some months in 2004, RCTV encouraged people to block highways, roads and seize public buildings."
http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/12/29/en_pol_art_29A819681.shtml

Isn't that what Fox did in 2000? Isn't that what MySpace and Latino stations did with "Day Without A Mexican"? Didn't stations in Oaxaca support blocked roads and highways? Aren't there people at DU who say the same thing? Hell, I've said it myself on occasion.

This is wrong. The media is being consolidated into the hands of the government. If Bush were doing what Chavez is doing, you guys would have pulled your hair out by now. Do not support despotic tactics just because you approve of the ideology.


Dec 14

"Telesur, a 24-hour Latin American news channel half-owned by Venezuela's government, bought Caracas-based Metropolitan Television Channel (CMT), putting all but one of the country's all-news channels in government hands."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axONrW4dtqGY&refer=latin_america

[Selatius]

86. You're comparing apples and oranges at this point.

For argument's sake, let's assume Perez was pardoned. Whether or not Perez was guilty of killing 3000 civilians is one issue. Whether he was pardoned is another issue. Just because Perez is pardoned does not necessarily mean the 1st issue did not happen, which it did. The same argument applies to Chavez. I don't deny Chavez launched a coup; that's plain for anybody looking at the fact. What I do deny is its relevance to the 2002 military coup launched against him. What I do deny is its relevance to the news media's involvement in advocating violent military overthrow of the government in 2002.

Your comparisons to Oaxaca are simply not warranted in my opinion because the news media was already controlled by Gov. Ulises Ruiz, whom CEAPPO has accused him of hiring hitmen and torturing dissidents even though APPO originally was a strike of teachers and workers calling for better conditions and treatment.

[sandnsea]

87. The law is the law

You don't have different sets of laws based on different ideologies. It's either wrong for the government to buy up all the media, and ban what it can't buy, or it's not. That's really all there is to it.

[Selatius]

91. The law said the president can pardon, and the president pardoned Chavez.

Now, you appear to be coming at me with a new topic of discussion after abandoning the issue of to pardon or not to pardon. OK, since you conceded that point, let's move on.

Do you think freedom of speech protects advocating violent military overthrow of the government? Beyond that point, I'd be hard pressed to think you would. I don't think anybody would. Now, to the issue of whether this is the right thing to do?

I can't really say because I would have to make an assumption as to what Chavez is doing. If this is a one-time incident, I would say it's probably the right thing to do. If ABC, CBS, or NBC were calling for the assassination of JFK and he lived, I would think you'd never hear of that network in US history again after the FCC got done with them. However, if this is a beginning of a pattern to put together nothing short of state-run news media akin to the Soviet model, yes this is something for which Venezuelans to be frightened. I'm fairly certain the second Chavez did anything, he would've been condemned as a tyrant regardless. If he had let the station keep its license instead but went after the owners, he would still be condemned as attacking free speech.

I can't really say who is right on the issue. I don't trust the opposition anymore, since they liquidated the judicial and legislative branches under Pedro Carmona, and my view of Chavez has grown mixed as I generally advocate a more anarchistic form of socialism, but ultimately, this is one issue that we'll have to defer to Venezuelans own people to decide, and whether we support or disapprove of the leader they choose is one issue we're going to have to live with until they decide it's time for him to be recalled according to their constitution or decide he should finish out his final term. I think there will be another recall referendum, in all honesty.

[sandnsea]

92. See #82

It is clear what is happening.

I was never discussing whether to pardon or not to pardon. I was stating that the coups and imprisonments and pardons were purely political. Nixon was pardoned, doesn't equate that he was innocent.

Point being, an attempted coup 4 years ago is hardly an excuse to revoke a license today. After reading the article I posted in #82, I'm even more convinced. Chavez is turning the country into a socialist dictatorship. Some people are willing to give up some personal freedoms in exchange for economic security. We give up personal freedoms in this country too. But we should no more turn our back on the increasing government control of the media in Venezuela than we should turn our back on the corporate control of our own media.

We're living in a time of nutty dictators and religious extremists. I don't know why, but they're cropping up like dandelions in June. All over the damned place. Including right here. I hope it's a blip on the radar and not an indication of some new Dark Ages. We sure can't ignore them, not any of them, imo.

[booley]

74. your comparisons still very bad

Do you think he (Gore) should have shut down Fox for its blatant manipulation of the election,..

Did we have tanks int he streets? Was Gore of Clinton being told at gun point to step down? Were the SCOTUS and Congress being disbanded?

Because I sure dont' recall that happening here in 2000. But it did happen in Venezualia during the coup against Chavez.

Even as a hypothetical, your arguement falls flat.

Sorry, it does.

Free Speech does not mean advocating violence. Nor si this the detah knell of the opposition to Chavez. When Dictators take control of the pres, they dont' just shut down one tv station. They shut them all down. and then shoot the reporters.

[sandnsea]

82. Dictators shut down all media

"Telesur, a 24-hour Latin American news channel half-owned by Venezuela's government, bought Caracas-based Metropolitan Television Channel (CMT), putting all but one of the country's all-news channels in government hands...

"The government has expanded its media holdings since 2002, when news outlets aligned with the country's political opposition refused for hours to report that a coup to topple Chavez had failed. The government now owns Venezolana de Television, a network for national news, Vive TV, which runs cultural news programming, and National Assembly Television, the official station of the congress.

"Telesur, established in 2005 as a regional alternative to international news outlets like CNN and the BBC, is 51 percent owned by the Venezuelan government, while Argentina owns 20 percent, Cuba owns 14 percent, and Uruguay and Bolivia together own 15 percent, Cabrera said..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axONrW4dtqGY&refer=latin_america

And you don't think he's taking control of all the media?

[roody]

95. That's ironic. The opposite of privatizing public works.

[booley]

73. Your point seems flawed

The point is, if it had been illegal to oppose any given President - Chavez would never have gotten out of jail ...

Except that first, no one seems to be going to jail. A TV station is not getting it's license renewed. That isn't the same as going to Jail.

And there are still other media outlets that are in operation that are critical of Chavez.

And finally we have similar laws in this country that allow TV stations ot have thier licenses not renewed if they advocate violent overthrow of the country. We have had it for decades now (I think since we first started having broadcast media) and yet we don't have you guys extending your "nazi" comparisons to Carter or Clinton or Ford or Eisenhower or FDR.

Becuase say what you will about Chavez, the coup this station supported was far less democratic then he is.

[Flubadubya]

2. Well, right now he happens to be THE legitimate President of Venzuela...

go figure... :shrug:

ON EDIT: That's FAIRLY ELECTED legitimate President of Venezuela.

[originalpckelly]

7. I think that's baloney. You need to wake up and smell the coffee...

no one should be suppressing free speech.

I can't believe someone would post against freedom of speech. It doesn't matter what pretense someone uses to take a television station off the air, it is wrong.

It doesn't matter how fascist or otherwise. No one should be shut up by a government.

People should have enough confidence in what they believe to allow others to speak against them. If what Chavez is selling to Venezuela is popular, then the opposition will be heard but ignored.

[Solon]

9. So people should be free to broadcast their intention to overthrow the government?

Violently if necessary, or even SUPPORT a coup? How about calling for the assassination of your own head of state?

[originalpckelly]

12. In America, as in most countries around the world, advocating the overthrow...

of a government is illegal.

If there were broadcasters who participated in a coup, or other's at the network who did so, they should be prosecuted, individually, like they would be in America.

The opposition of Chavez, shouldn't be silenced however. That's what revoking a license does.

[Solon]

14. And what do you do when the station owner, managers, and reporters...

All support a coup, you should revoke their license, instead Chavez just said they aren't going to renew it. Also, they did TRY to prosecute the Coup plotters, but the case has sort of fallen apart since the lead prosecutor's car, with him in it, blew up.

Besides, most of the major players in the coup live in the U.S. now, under United States protection, in, of all places, Miami, this includes "president for a day" Pedro Carmona, who viciously used Caracas police to suppress protests by those opposed to the coup, killing hundreds.

[originalpckelly]

17. I am so sorry you don't believe in freedom of speech...

I'm terribly sorry you're willing to silence those who disagree with your viewpoint, or that you would stand silent as another person loses their freedom of speech.

[Solon]

20. You just said that advocating the overthrow of a government is illegal...

and it is, but you oppose revoking the license of a station that advocated for JUST THAT. I'm baffled really, I mean, what should the government have done, arrest everyone there? Wouldn't you still be bitching about their "free speech" rights being violated? Wouldn't that also shut down the station?

[originalpckelly]

81. The whole station should be allowed to continue...

the people involved in actually allowing a coup shouldn't.

[TankLV]

44. Oh for christsake!

Get a life - it's worse than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none.

IT IS NOT "FREE SPEECH"!

IT'S "TREASON"!

[originalpckelly]

83. I'm sorry, but there is a difference between the entire station and...

the people who work at the station.

[Selatius]

67. Wow, nice sidestepping of Solon's response to yours.

Free speech does not protect speech that threatens immediate danger. This is why yelling fire in a crowded theater is not considered free speech. Neither is calling for a military overthrow of one's government. That's illegal, but as he said, the case went up in smoke when the prosecutors died.

[originalpckelly]

84. Prosecutors can be replaced.

If the evidence is there, at trial can continue if it is being held in a fashion which is commiserate with international law.

[dannofoot]

23. "Revoke"..."Not renew"...

..What the hell is the difference???

[Solon]

25. Uhm, the government isn't obligated to renew licenses...

personally, they should have revoked the license in 2002, I think, personally, that Chavez has been way to soft on the coup plotters and their enablers, as of now, no one is in jail.

[Cha]

93. Isn't that what happened

leading up to the Rwanda massacre?

http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=20040405000111§ion_type=com

This doesn't say anything about it but in the film they had "hate" radio inciting the Hutus.

[ThomCat]

34. You're right. Instead of suppressing free speech,

the media should just be handed over to corporate interests entirely like we do here in the US. Then they could pretend they have free press, like we pretend here in the US.

Venezuela has been ranked higher than the US in freedom of the press. I think ALL corporate charters should have expiration dates on them, and governments SHOULD refuse to renew corporate charters if those corporations don't serve the public good.

[malaise]

49. LOL

Freedom of the press means the right to overthrow all governments but the US. The argument is promoted by the same people who destroyed the Free press by killing journalists and blowing up television stations during the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Sometimes I laugh at thw way in which some so called progressives attack governments who check the corporate funded and owned propaganda stations.

Given the well coordinated lies and spin promoted on MSM, you really have to wonder what is free about the US media. Not one of them has even mentioned International law with regard to the invasion and Saddam's lynching.

Put simply if Chavez had shut down all the left wing media, he'd be the hypocrites hero. I know the role of the right wing media right here in Jamaica during the 1980s. Phillip Agee the CIA agent came here and exposed all their shit.

[Lilith Velkor]

55. Codswallop!

If any station had tried to pull the same thing on Bush, it would have been riddled with bullets along with everyone working there, and the survivors thrown in prison, with or without the nicety of a rigged trial.

You need to grow up and do some reading.

[JacksonWest]

88. Amen.

Free speech is the most important right in any democracy.

[rman]

100. What do you think would happen if CNN would start calling for a coup

against Bush?
What if the coup would take place, with support from Venezuela and part of the US military - and then CNN would brag about the part they played in it?

(That's exactly what happened in Venezuela.)

Do you seriously think it would be protected as free speech?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. He Promised He'd Do This But I Still Find It A Shame He Went Ahead With This.

Bad precedent indeed.

I agree with ya. :thumbsup:

[originalpckelly]

10. It's absolutely terrifying what lengths people on DU will go to...

to justify the removal of station's license because it broadcasts an opposing viewpoint.

If there were individuals involved in the coup against Chavez at the station, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as they would in America or any other nation.

The whole station shouldn't be shut down, that's what makes this so very political.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Exactly. Fully Agreed.

[dannofoot]

18. As "The Nation" wrote:

"Venezuela's media, including state TV, need tough controls to insure diversity, balance and access, enforced at arm's length from political powers. Some of Chávez's proposals (such as an ominous clause banning speech that shows "disrespect" to government officials) overstep these bounds and could easily be used to muzzle critics."

This is quite obviously one of those cases.

[NashVegas]

21. Where Were You in 2002?

When the US-backed coup was taking place?

And these stations, run by the moneyed elites, were in it up to their eyeballs?

[dannofoot]

24. In grad school...

Am I excluded because I didn't chime in then?

[rman]

52. supporting a coup = "opposing viewpoint"? - you are a coup apologist

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

77. He did nothing. He gave a speech. He talked tough. The end.

Besides, nobody here knows how the law is in Venezuela about TV broadcast licenses.

[DocSavage]

16. Say it aint so

Chavez shuts down media that disagree's with him. Who would have thunk the second coming of western hemispher elected leaders would be shutting down TV stations. Guess we have to wait till next month to find out if it is newspapers or radio stations that will be next.

I bet he wins his next election with 98.6% of the vote.

[Pastiche423]

27. He isn't shutting down media that disagrees (no apostrophe) w/him

The government is simply not re-issuing a license for a tv station.

I'm surprised it din't happen after the April 2002, U.S. government aided coup.

Btw, his last election was conducted w/a transparent code, unlike the elections here. He is a legitimately elected president. Little lord pisspants is NOT.

[RB TexLa]

19. Can't wait to see if the same defend Bush for shutting down TV stations or

newspapers.

[NashVegas]

22. If My Local TV Station Went 24/7 Telling People to Get In the Streets

to oust the government, I might not take kindly to Bush for shutting them down, but it wouldn't be unexpected.

[dannofoot]

26. "My local TV station"...

What's one wrong, Crisco, got only one station where you live?

Don't have three networks, plus cable?...it's pretty obvious you got the Internets.

Hardly not the same thing as ""my local TV station" wouldn't ya say?

[mitchtv]

31. I'm missing your point

illegal is still illegal. Here they would have their license revoked.

[DocSavage]

48. Won't

happen, Chavez can do no wrong in the eyes of some on this board. Revolutionary leaders tend to become President for Life after a few years. He will just replace Castro when he dies.

[Lilith Velkor]

51. Venezuela and Cuba are not the same country

Is it that damn hard to look at a map before spouting uninformed bullshit?

[tom_paine]

29. I now see it so clearly. Chavez and Bush are so alike.

Mirror images of extremist authoritarians, Left and Right.

Chavez hates Bush because he IS Bush (in his own way, Left and Right authoritarianism differ in the details).

Both trample on the rights and freedoms of their own people.

[rman]

53. you forgot the sarcasm tag

i presume.

[tom_paine]

72. Sir, you presume wrong.

I meant what I said. I understand that you will disagree, but that is exactly how I feel.

As I have said previously, for the longest time I have sat on the fence about Chavez. Some think him saint, others think him a devil. I have listened to both side and thought some merit in each.

But this, and a couple other of his recent moves, cast him (in my opinion) as being on the side of the Bushes of the world, the tyrants and autocrats. And yes, there have been many Left-Wing Autocrats and Tyrants in this world as well as Right-Wing ones.

Tyranny knows no political party. Tyranny knows no economic philosophy. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, have all been the economic partners of tyranny throughout history.

Let us not forget that historically, Communists and hardcore socialists have always cloaked their anti-freedom agenda (yes, I hate to paraphrase the vile Chimposter on anything, but that is how I see much of Chavez' agenda) in good works for the poor and downtrodden.

Do I think that taints or mitigates the good works Chavez has done for the poor? No. But I do think the other hand of his overall program is anti-freedom. And that is not made any better even if Chavez spent 24hrs./day 365 days/year helping the poor.

Chavez is one of the many varieties and degrees of autocratic tyrants (yes, I am aware he was elected on an election system likely more trustworthy than ours, but then, as Bushler clearly shows, just having the impimatur of legitimacy does not preclude descent into tyranny.

I'm sure we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[rman]

97. Given that the US supports the opposition to Chavez, it is completely ridiculous

to say that Chavez is on the side of the Bushes in this world.

You say you "think" Chavez' program is anti-freedom, but you present no evidence.

There's one possible similarity between Bush and Chavez, see the OP - and then still the details of that situation imply that to is not a similarity: some big commercial Venezuelan media have bragged live on TV about their participation in the US supported military coup against Chavez in 2002.

For the rest there are nothing but differences:
compare US foreign policy (in particular in Latin America) to Venezuelan foreign policy. How many wars has Chavez started as of recently?

Compare Venezuelan domestic policy with US domestic policy: helping the poor (and the economy) versus depriving the poor and driving the economy into the ground - except for the economy of the rich and powerful, the same corporate interests that run the US government, the same corporate interests that oppose Chavez.


I suppose you missed this thread, though it has been referenced numerous times:
Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=311462&mesg_id=311462

[Recursion]

75. I'm with tom_paine on that one

Chavez and * hate each other so much because they are disturbingly alike, and I don't like either of them. Both are demagogues, both are happy to abuse or ignore Constitutional checks on their own power, both can't stand it when people point out their flaws.

[rman]

98. You say Bush and Chavez are alike, but don't make the case

that they are. Surely you're not expecting people to just take your word for it?

[Toots]

57. What do you know of the rights and freedoms of Venezuela?

Do you know what their constitution says and how many coups have been accomplished in the past. The USA is lucky it has never had to endure a military coup. It is easy for us to cast stones when we never experienced the same things they have. Coups are a reality there but not so here. They do what they can to guard against them in a much more forceful manner. I understand our desire for every country to be exactly like America but it just ain't so..... Chavez wants what is best for the great majority of the people and not just the wealthy and he is willing to go to extremes to insure the people get the best deal possible...Until I see the people being abused and manipulated I will hold my judgement..

[roody]

68. How extremely low has our government sunk

that many of us would now welcome a military coup to oust Bush.

[mitchtv]

30. the owners of the station should be in jail

This is not opposition, it is inciting rebellion. No station in the US would get away with it. They are certainly entitled to sell the station and the new owners can reapply for a license.There are plenty of opposition outlets.

[JanMichael]

32. Oy vey...Give it up man. Chavez is the future and the Plutocrats can suck ass.

Sorry but the Left is winning and the Right can go shove Monkey shit up their collective religious conservative noses.

The situations lamented are a part of the 2002 Right wing CIA sponseredCoup for shits sakes.
GIVE IT UP!

PS~ Chavez is not technically the future. But the movement to liberate the poor is; so get with the movement or get out of the way:-)

[dave_p]

33. Good

The government's presumably withholding license renewal because it's entitled to do so. Otherwise there'd be no point having licenses subject to state renewal.

Since when was some private corporation automatically entitled to a nation's airwaves? They aren't, and it's about time they started earning that access. And most of Venezuela's have a long way to go.

[Zodiak]

78. Nice point, Dave and welcome to DU

I was waiting for that comment to be made.

Many of us on this board need to stop and think what we are advocating when we say they should arrest a few people at the station but let the station continue its business. What strikes me as odd about this position is the superiority assigned to corporate rights over individual rights. Only in this nation (the US) is a corporation treated like a person, and many on DU consider this to be a bad policy, but then assimilate the notion that a corporation has "rights" like a person when it comes to Venezuela.

Chavez has a right to not renew a license. He is not actively shutting the TV station down or arresting people, but passively letting the license expire. This, to me, is not an issue of free speech unless said free speech includes advocacy of violent overthrow.

Many of the rest of the TV stations are all opposition stations, as well, so the decision is not based on ideology.

[0rganism]

36. I'm curious: what do you think would happen to a broadcast license in the USA...

...if the licensed network broadcasted a call for armed rebellion against the federal government or assasination of the president?

Do you think the treatment here would be substantially different? Would the owners have to wait 4 years not to have their license renewed? Or would they be cooling their heels in jail for 10-to-20 damn near immediately, with summary suspension of broadcast license?

Not that it will ever be an issue here. Our domestic broadcast media is so well-contained, gated, and self-censored to avoid anything remotely resembling the kind of sedition you're defending on the part of RCTV, it's not even a contest. We haven't lived through anything close to what the Venezuelans deal with on a daily basis.

If anything, this is proof positive that whether or not Chavez is "a budding despot" as you say, he is not already a despot, at least not in the classic sense of a South American dictator. A true despot would have the offending broadcasters shot at dawn, on the day he regained power, or possibly discretely assasinated within a day or two to preserve a thin veil of plausible deniability.

[SanCristobal]

37. Chavez SHOULD shut that station down,

just like George Bush should shut down DU for promoting his removal from office! Governments can't have to worry about things like free speech getting in the way of their power!

Chavez is just a South American Bush with better politics. He has no respect for the rule of law, only for keeping himself in power. Hence his coup, his funny referendum, and his constant constitutional rewrites to consolidate his control of Venezuela.

That last sentence contains alliteration, but the point stands.

[TankLV]

45. Just join up so you could post that gem?

We see thru you...

[SanCristobal]

58. No, I joined so I could argue about minimum wage

on the other forum. This just caught my eye. Whats wrong with my post?

[Recursion]

76. On DU, Chavez is sacrosanct, you'll find

Which bothers me, because I don't like the guy, don't trust the guy, and think he's a leftist version of Bush with all the same flaws and problems. But, it's decidedly against the grain here.

[leftchick]

85. big diff

Chavez gives nationalized Oil money back to help the poor through education, housing and healthcare. Bush gives corporatized tax breaks to private oil conglomarates so they can continue screwing the poor and middleclass.

Yes, chavez is a great comparison to bush. :eyes:

[rman]

54. impeachment = coup? - another coup appologist

[Recursion]

79. I think you're conflating two events

There was a coup attempt against Perez in 1992, in which Chavez was a leading participant.
Perez was impeached in 1993.
There was a coup attempt against Chavez in 2002.

Chavez has led a coup attempt, and has had a coup attempt led against him. Perez was impeached, Chavez has not been. I don't think people are comparing the 1993 impeachment to the 2002 coup attempt; they are comparing the 1992 coup attempt with the 2002 coup attempt.

Chavez remains (to me) a good example of how demagogues with good intentions can very easily become bannana republic dictators. He's sliding dangerously close to a "President for life" kind of set up already.

[rman]

101. The reason why Chavez shut down that TV station

has everything to do with their role in the 2002 coup against Chavez, and the fact that they haven't changed their behavior since.

SanCristobal compares this to DU calling for the removal of Bush, which for all i know is primarily about impeachment.

So SanCristobal does compare a coup with impeachment. All i'm saying is that the two are rather different.

Besides, Chavez had strong popular support for his coup attempt - thanks to public pressure he was pardoned not to long after going to jail for it. Next thing you know he was elected with an overwhelming majority of the vote.
This is not opinion, it is part of the historic record.

[roody]

69. Who initiated the referendum?

[calzone]

38. When the press isn't the press

I'm not gonna flame you dannofoot, just offer what my research has shown. I had this very debate on another forum months ago, I decided to archive what I learned, I never thought I'd need to use it on a liberal board, but no matter.
The airwaves belong to the people, not private capitalists. Radio & TV stations are given the privilege of using it to sell soap powder and boner pills only if they also provide a public service and honest, balanced, responsible information. I've worked in radio & TV news for many years. 'News' is the price corporations reluctantly pay to use the peoples' airwaves. The regulations put on radio and TV are stricter in the U.S. than in Venezuela. Unless it supports the government. A TV station cannot use fake reporters, present fabricated news as genuine journalism, incite riots and revolution like a radio station did between the Tutsis and Hutus on another continent, take money from the CIA and Bush government, and knowingly broadcast lies for the express purpose to undermine democracy and put corporate operatives in power.
I hope you read what I'm posting, I did. And not just skimmingly, but really read every paragraph and link. It probably will change your mind about Chavez. If you really don't want to have your mind changed, you won't read it, and dismiss it as propaganda. But I offer it up.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1507

http://www.alternet.org/story/16255/

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_lev_ver_hap-lifestyle-happiness-level-very-happy

http://www.counterpunch.org/delacour07032004.html

http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.47_Telesur_%20the_one.htm

http://www.williambowles.info/venezuela/2005/ven_media.html

The so-called anti-insult laws in Venezuela are in fact, laws requiring responsible journalism. If you print anti-govt, anti-Chavez charges, you must have vetted sources (if challenged)

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-03.htm

"Private television at a national level has been monopolized by the Cisneros group (Venevisión) and the 1BC group of Phelps-Granier (Radio Caracas Televisión). Out of 44 regional television networks, nearly all are linked by chain to private networks Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión, Televen, and Globovision. This small group of corporations also control radio-electric spaces and the national press.

Since Chávez was elected president in 1998, and especially in the tense days of the oil strikes by business sectors in December 2001 and during the lead-up to the coup in April 2002, this powerful private media has run a fierce campaign to discredit him. A few hours after Chávez was removed from office on April 11, 2002, opposition spokesperson Napoleón Bravo came on the air and falsely broadcast that Chávez had resigned. While opposition leaders were taking over the presidential palace and dissolving democratic institutions, the private media was running its regular broadcast of cooking shows, soap operas, and cartoons. Members of the community were deprived of access to information, as the government-owned television station, Channel 8, and several community radio and television stations were taken off the air.

During this time, it was mainly the alternative print media that was able to get the message out to the people about what was happening. According to Roberto, a worker at the Caracas Municipal Press, activists came to the press and labored to produce 100,000 copies of a bulletin, informing people about what was happening. Radio Fe y Alegría also came back on the air and began to make announcements about the coup. Through the bulletins, alternative radio, and the exchange of text messages through cell phones, people were able to pass on the news of the coup and come out onto the streets in massive demonstrations that would put Chávez back into power.

At the time of the coup, the alternative and community media broke through the silence and misinformation of the private media. The passing of information from mouth to mouth was a revival of Radio Bemba, an age-old tradition of gossip and communication in Caribbean countries, that has begun utilizing electronic technology such as radio to multiply messages."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=9393

"From December 2002 to January 2003, President Hugo Chávez Frías repeatedly threatened to cancel the broadcasting concessions of private TV stations. This development in the conflict between Chávez and the media occurred in the context of a strike called by the largest labor union federation, the business association Fedecámaras, and the opposition umbrella group Coordinadora Democrática. Most Venezuelan media have actively backed the opposition and joined in supporting the strike. Amid an extremely polarized environment, both private and state media abandoned all pretense of objectivity and balance."
http://www.cpj.org/cases03/americas_cases03/ven.html

"Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."
http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2509/index.php

"Venezuela's media has been criticized for openly supporting undemocratic methods to oust President Chavez, including a coup d'etat in 2002, in which commercial TV stations taped and broadcasted calls to overthrow the government made by military officers and civilian leaders opposed to President Chavez. The day of the coup, the El Nacional newspaper ran an extra edition with the prominent headline "The final battle will be at Miraflores," calling people to confront the government at the Miraflores presidential palace.

Former journalist Izarra mentioned that while being news director at RCTV, Venezuela's second most watched TV network, he had to resign when RCTV and other networks decided to censor the civil uprising aimed at restoring democratically elected Chavez after the coup d'etat.

The media also heavily supported and promoted a lock-out and strike of the oil industry aimed at ousting Chavez, which caused an estimated 14 billion dollars in loses to the Venezuelan economy. "More than 13,000 political propaganda advertisements were broadcast in a two month period in order to animate an economically devastating and socially destabilizing general strike directed at overthrowing Chavez," noted Izarra.

Earlier this year, CIA director Porter Goss classified Venezuela as the top "potentially unstable country" in Latin America, while Chavez alerted the world to Washington's alleged intentions to assassinate him.

A few weeks ago, a group of almost 400 Venezuelan journalists issued a statement denouncing a "campaign" from the United States against Venezuela. The journalists argued that negative and frequent media coverage of Venezuela in the U.S., as well as the frequent comments by high ranking officials at the State Department, the CIA, and The White House, amount to a "campaign" similar to those applied against countries which were later invaded by the U.S."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7718

http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/29/1448220

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1809

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20051120&articleId=1296

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/608/31256

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Parenti/GoodThings_Venezuela.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00377.htm

I support Chavez. He's the diamond in the cesspool, IMHO. Our govt. uses every trick and technique at it's disposal to demonize, undermine, smear and dry gulch Chavez, because he won't take their crap. When Noriega did that, we killed 4000 civilians and kidnapped the leader of a democratic nation...because we were the big kid and they were an easy mark. To this day U.S. Southern Command owns Panama. Venezuela, like Iran and N. Korea, is a tough nut, and bullies would rather sneak up and backstab toughies, like using Polonium or trying to assasinate using locals, as we've done with Castro and Chavez. Like Johnny Cash, I keep my eyes wide open all the time.

[Nabia2004]

40. excellent links, thank you - nt

[calzone]

42. You're quite welcome. :-) n/t

[bananas]

43. Great post and links - I'll add this one

It's amazing how often these things need to be repeated on a liberal board.

"I hereby RESURRECT the Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing
Falsehood Debunking Thread!!!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2199484&mesg_id=2199484

[Judi Lynn]

47. I've been scanning your excellent links, and found one which has

a very direct, helpful evaluation of the situation:

Izarra noted that the United States has laws on national security and the President's security, which are stricter than Venezuela's. The Minister cited the US Code, Title 18, Section 871, which covers "threats against the President and presidential successors," and prohibits any offense or threat made against the President of the United States.

"...The {US} Patriot Act together with an Executive Order gives President Bush the power to determine when a person represents a threat to the United States. If the person is a U.S. citizen, he or she can be detained for an indefinite length of time without rights, be declared an enemy of the state, and even lose his citizenship. If the person is not a U.S. citizen, he or she can be detained without any rights and be brought before a secret military tribunal without anyone, not even his family members, finding out," Izarra said.

Venezuela's media has been criticized for openly supporting undemocratic methods to oust President Chavez, including a coup d'etat in 2002, in which commercial TV stations taped and broadcasted calls to overthrow the government made by military officers and civilian leaders opposed to President Chavez. The day of the coup, the El Nacional newspaper ran an extra edition with the prominent headline "The final battle will be at Miraflores," calling people to confront the government at the Miraflores presidential palace.
(snip)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7718

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would be a wonder to see some of the visiting right-wingers break down and start finding out the facts about this, rather than attempting to rave on from a position of complete confusion. You've offered them the chance to start educating themselves.

Going to file your post for later reference, as your links will definitely be very useful. Thanks a lot for taking the time to post these sources here. Hope those who are still in the dark will take the time to enlighten themselves.
Welcome to D.U., calzone! :hi: :hi: :hi:

[calzone]

59. Thanks bananas & Judi Lynn

In the recent Venezuelan elections, Chavez won a staggering majority landslide, but the U.S. media was virtually oblivious. Odd.....huh? :-P
Here's more on that historic event.
"Amazing but true. On December 3, 2006, the people of Venezuela voted in what hundreds of independent observers from around the world, including from the Carter Center in the US, called a free, fair, open and extremely smooth and well-run electoral process. They chose the only man they'll entrust with the job as long as he wants it reelecting Hugo Chavez with a majority 62.87% of the vote with the highest voter turnout in the country's history at almost 75% of the electorate. No US president since 1820, when elections here consistently became real contests, ever matched it or has any US election ever embraced all the democratic standards all Venezuelans now enjoy since Hugo Chavez came to office."
continued here......
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4077

[bananas]

46. Reporters Without Borders Unmasked

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

May 17, 2005
Its Secret Deal with Otto Reich to Wreck Cuba's Economy
Reporters Without Borders Unmasked

By DIANA BARAHONA

When Robert Menard founded Reporters Without Borders twenty years ago, he gave his group a name which evokes another French organization respected worldwide for its humanitarian work and which maintains a strict neutrality in political conflicts Doctors Without Borders. But RSF (French acronym) has been anything but nonpartisan and objective in its approach to Latin America and to Cuba in particular.

<snip>

[calzone]

63. Wow. What a sleazy web

So Reporters without borders recieves funding and support from CANF, a Cuban exile terrorist organization and Otto Reich, a murderous rightwing thug. They also recieve funding from USAID, an instrument of the CIA, and the State dept., a primary appendage of the Bush regime and another instrument of the CIA. And the other revelations are very, very illuminating, including the propaganda racket RWB set up in Cuba.
RWB is permanently tainted in my book.

[JacksonWest]

90. Yeah. Total scum. Although they were instrumental in saving Jill Carroll.

[calzone]

103. I'm not familiar with that involvement....

...or the conclusion that RSF deserved credit for her release, but if so, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.:-)

[genie_weenie]

50. "Regicide" is still the worst crime in the world.

Obviously, regicide used to mean killing of the king. Well, Governments all over the world got together and enshrined the idea that all Governments are inviolate. No matter what they do. No matter what Bush or Congress do, no matter the crime, the Government is forever and advocating it's change or dissolution is the WORST crime. As though it were written in stone and handed down from on high, The Government is the alpha and omega. Why should it be different in any other State?

However! It does get interesting if the rebels win militarily and set up a new government, then it's as if the other was never legitimate and the new one has inherited the Mandate From Heaven.

[Solon]

56. That's actually incorrect...

I can advocate the change in government, we do it all the time, and it was SUCCESSFUL, at least partially, recently. However, it has to happen though legal means, and, as long as a government has legitimacy, nowadays usually through being democratic in some form, coups are considered one of the highest crimes to commit, especially when legal alternatives ALREADY exist. You cannot advocate a coup in a nation that has elections that are internationally monitored, considered fair, and the only reason why you aren't in power is because you aren't popular.

The only time that coups are generally considered OK to do is when all other legal options are exhausted, and, in addition, you lose the mandate of the people of the nation.

[Larry Ogg]

60. What precedent has the US corporately owned media set?

US corporately owned media is all about corporate free speech which cares little about freedom of the press or freedom of speech. In fact any one who relies on corporate news such as fox for there source of information as too how they would vote in an election will vote the way the right wing corporate media wants them too vote. In effect the votes are stolen first by steeling your mind with lies, censorship, propaganda and tons of mockery too bury the truth and any progressive or liberal point of view or competition deemed unpatriotic by the ruling power starved corporate elite. If our dying democracy survives it will be because the media giants, so bloated with conflicts of interest, loose there licenses thus allowing the media and free press too be no longer beholden too a hand full of stockholders, but rather too the first amendment and the peoples right too know the truth before making a decision at the polls.

[TahitiNut]

61. Sedition (advocacy of armed/violent overthrow of the government) is unlawful in the US, too.

If any licensed TV or radio station were to pursue such a policy in the US, it'd have its license revoked, too. Further, anyone at that station who'd advocated sedition would probably be tried.

[Ms. Clio]

62. Here's some violations of freedom of the press that are a bit closer to "home"

Cyberdissident still in prison despite release announcement

Austrian national Kamal Sayid Qadir, jailed for 30 years in early January 2006 for posting "defamatory" articles online, is still behind bars despite an announcement more than a week ago by representatives of the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan government that his release was imminent.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16104


Or here's one, about another guy accused of plotting a coup, Mouqtada al-Sadr:

On 18 July 2003 al-Sadr used a Friday sermon in Al-Najaf to denounce as "puppets" the members of Iraq's new U.S.-appointed Governing Council. He also announced his own plans to form a militia. Al-Sadr announced his new government during his sermon at Friday prayers in Al-Kufah on 10 October 2003. Muqtada al-Sadr announced his intention to form an Islamic state in Iraq by establishing a shadow government there, complete with ministries. Fighting broke out in Karbala on 13 October 2003 when al-Sadr's men attacked supporters of moderate Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani near the Imam Hussein shrine.

The cleric challenged coalition forces after they closed his "Al-Hawzah" newspaper on charges of incitement and arrested an al-Sadr aide on charges relating to the al-Khoi killing

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-sadr.htm


Hmmmmm, so who is the despot, now? I'm sure you want to go on record with your outrage in these cases, too.

[k_jerome]

64. this is SOP for South American dictators. nt.

[rman]

102. only for democratically elected 'dictators' that do not have US interests

at heart - where the fact that they don't have US interests at heart is the reason why US officials and corporate MSM call them "dicator".

It's not SOP for the actual dictators that come to power thanks to US supported military coups - where the fact that they do have US interests at heart is the reason why US officials and corporate MSM do not call them "dictator".

That has been SOP for the US (with complicity from other wealthy nations) ever since WW2 - you have to be blind not to see the pattern.

[roody]

66. I wish we had a leader who would do the same

for our worthless media.

[JacksonWest]

89. This is the most irresponsible thread I've ever seen.

How can anyone that considers them self a Democrat support a president shutting down an entire television network?

I understand that they supported the coup against the president, according to posters in this thread. If this is a crime, prosecute the offenders. Not the entire network. Evidently, they don't support Chavez. This alone could me constructed as supporting a coup by some, I suppose. But, for the love of crumb cake, doesn't anyone see the irony in a President(sort of) shutting down a television network because they "don't support democracy"? He's unilaterally removing them....

[roody]

94. The air waves belong to the public. We should be

revoking a whole lot more than a few stations. It is time to start revoking charters of corporation.

[JacksonWest]

96. People often confuse their interest with the public interest.

And, in this country, only broadcast television and radio belong to the public. The FCC couldn't shut down FOX or NBC or anyone else. At best, they can prevent a single station from broadcasting on the public airwaves.

There really aren't any hard-fast rules-but I agree that allowing anyone to own a large amount of tv stations is destructive. This is different then owning an actual network.

[rman]

99. LOL you must be new here

Or you have missed all the Chavez threads in the past. I'm sure if you'd have read those you'd find them equally irresponsible.

You could inform yourself about the facts regarding Chavez, instead of speculating based on what you hear in the US media and what you read on DU.

Trying to frame "supporting a coup" as "not supporting Chavez" - as several posters in this thread have already done - does not change anything about the facts:

Venezuelan TV networks actually bragged live on TV about their participation in the 2002 military coup against Chavez, see The Revolution will not be televised
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

[JacksonWest]

104. If they had a material role in the coup why does it take five years to shut them down?

Treason is treason. Put the people on trial. I am aware of Chavez and his history. I don't think he's anything special. I don't understand the hero worship or the blanket condemnation. Frankly, I think he's a bit of a jackass...but that the people in Venezuela support him.

That being said, it's obvious that this network does not and did not support him. I do not see that as a reason to dissolve it, especially five years after the fact.

Thanks for the link. I'll probably watch it tomorrow. Propaganda is good for hang overs.