Slashdot Mirror
Venezuela's Chavez To Limit Internet Freedom
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.'"
Coming soon to Obamaland!
I guess Chavez has decided to follow the same path that every other communist leader has followed? "We cannot allow openness if it means people will disagree with me."
Palm trees and 8
This isn't shocking. In fact, I'm surprised it took him this long. Maybe someone should give Mr Chavez China's number so he can get some first hand tips on how to handle this.
Who modded this insightful? I guess they are tired, it is a bit early on a Sunday morning.
Palm trees and 8
How is that different to the legislation in Spain for example, there are things you can't say in print and Internet is no different. A lie is a lie, no matter were you publish it.
This one would be credible if the non-communist countries weren't doing it. :-(
But they are: latest is New Zealand. So meh. Welcome to the club, I guess
This shows how intellectually bankrupt Chavez is ... stealing this idea from the Australian government. Next he will be stealing from America and giving billions in untraceable loans to mismanaged corporations.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
The first reaction to news like this -- rated up twice in a minute, mind you -- is to look at this issue through a hyperpartisan lens.
The desire to curtail freedom on the Internet comes not from the right or the left, but the powerful. Anybody with a computer can have a voice, and as with the copyright industries there is a wish to turn back the hands of time rather than to adjust to the new reality, progress be damned.
It's time to shed partisanship and take a very real look at the role the Internet should play in our society. To do otherwise is to let one "side" or the other continue to erode a unique and precious part of our lives forever; once lost, what we currently enjoy with the Internet will never be returned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela
Wonder who is classified a dictator in his mind...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Something we support for those countries where the press votes mostly to the left!
Sincerely
- The Left
captcha: 'pinkish'
But, of course, it's slashdot reporting here :).
In other news, once he decides to censor his citizens, friendly US companies will jump in with solutions... As they did for China and Iran.
Why democracies do not limit such kind of products being made and sold? Don't talk freedom here - chemical/biological agents are limited already and it's good they are.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Hugo Chavez has promised to speed up "the construction of true socialism" in Venezuela now that he can stand for re-election indefinitely. "We have exploded the barriers to a permanent socialist revolution."
Chavez has already taken control of the country's vast oil wealth, expropriated private landholdings and businesses and instituted a programme of deep social reforms. He has attacked the "distribution of wealth" problem by destroying as much of it as possible. After Chávez promised to nationalise the biggest power and phone companies, the Caracas Stock Exchange closed nearly 20% down, Electricidad de Caracas fell 25% and CA Nacional Telefonos was suspended from trading. The Venezuelan Bolivar has been replaced in common use with twigs and small rocks, which suddenly have much greater practical exchange value.
Chavez next wants to merge all his coalition partners into a single party, remove the opposition television channel, monitor the Internet "appropriately," nationalise key businesses and rule by decree for a year. However, construction of a one-hundred-metre tall gold statue of himself in the Caracas city square that turns to follow the sun will be delayed until next year, and renaming the days of the week and months of the year after himself and his mother can wait until the year after.
Chavez' good friend Fidel Castro expressed his confidence that Chavez was in no danger from the US. "This is the CIA we're talking about," said Castro. "They could fuck up a wet dream. Hey, maybe they'll try the exploding cigar trick again. That's a good one."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A "President for Life" google bomb.
Chavez also suggest to take shower only 3 minutes to save water. I tried that, but I guess I smelled like a Chavez.
Everyone must be "responsible" for their words. Responsibility begins with registering your nicknames along with your address for our thugs.
Shh.
In Venezuela the freedom of speech is the greatest in the world. In Television News anchors openly talk about killing the president, they make calls for a coup d'etat, all this goes for newspapers and radio stations. People can say and think whatever thay want. There has been 11 years of this. And they still say that there is no freedom of speech in Venezuela. I watch how the world sees Venezuela, they show a country in total war with mass killings, wich is total bullshit. Yes there was a time 2002-2003 where there was a fight and a coup d'etat, wich the people fought to get their president back and they won, the vast majority of Venezuelans won. This small faction of what we call "media terrorist" who own private TV stations, radio, and newspapers still attack their own country by lying to them. Im venezuelan, if you want to know the truth of whats happening here, come to Venezuela, to any part of it, and you will see peace, a beautiful country.
This sort of thing will not be considered in Europe or North America, and us residents of those places will pat ourselves on the back for our love of liberty...
The difference between Venezuela and our countries is that in our countries, the ruling class own both the media and politicians. In Venezuela, they just own the media.
Chavez has some bad policies, and we're right to criticise those policies, but the context is important for forming an accurate opinion rather than a knee-jerk chauvinist one.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The wild west day of the internet are almost over.
The internet can now give power to individuals, corporations and governments (and the US corpovernment ) will not let this go on for long, unless ...
The internet cannot be a free thing, each country has its rules. Regulation and laws. All these pages have an administrator. We must act. We're going to request support from the Attorney General.
This is not acceptable, that they broadcast whatever they want, poisoning the minds of many people
Noticiero Digital (listen, this is very grave): "Breaking news; Diosdado Cabello murdered" [...] Someone has to be responsible here because these pages cannot be free for what you to want to say. There are laws here and they must be obeyed.
Link to original video: Dailymotion - Chávez pide actuar contra ND (in Spanish).
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
The headline states "Chavez to limit internet freedom" as if he has just instituted a Great Firewall of Venezuela. He has done nothing of the sort. All he has done is make a public call for more regulation of the internet to prevent false and defamatory information. Clueless politicians across the globe make similar calls all the time, even in the land of the free. Much more worrying is the planned Australian censorship of the internet.
Chavez is more that just a communist leader. He's wacky as well. Sort of the Kim Il Jong of South America.
Fidel Castro was suppressive, but not really wacky.
Chavez called for a ban on video games, and that children should play with tradition toys, like yo-yo's.
Now, that is not just suppressive, that is just plain wacky.
A yo-yo? Yes, Mr. Chavez, it takes one to know one.
But I guess there are a more than a few North American politicians who have the same idea as well.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yeah, like that scare where some court says that cities can take private property in eminent domain and give it to other private entities for an enhancement in property tax. That could never happen here....
Chavez is a dictator[snip]
Don't let Sean Penn hear you say that!
This report provides a great opportunity to see how the anti-Chavez croud is prone to knee-jerk reactions while so poorly informed. The thing is, the report which this slashdot post is based on only mentions that Chavez complained about a specific website posting false information. More specifically, the offending website, which is ran by an anti-Chavez faction, made up a story about how one of Chavez' cabinet ministers was assassinated and kept the made up story on it's site for days, although it was repeatedly contacted and informed that the minister was, in fact, alive and well. Chavez' coment is nothing more than a complain that just because it's the internet you shouldn't be allowed to dedicate itself to defamation and intentionally spread false information. And suddenly he is labelled as a dictator hell-bent on destroying openness? What twisted train of thought leads you from a) you shouldn't spread lies to b) no freedom for you?
The thing is, this is yet another example on how hell-bent some people are on attacking Chavez. For example, imagine that a media company such as Fox/CNN/whatever decided to run stories on how Bush/Obama was assassinated. Imagine that that media company decided not only to post that information but also kept it up for days, although it was repeatedly contacted to be informed that no, Bush/Obama was still very much alive. If, after that, Bush/Obama complained that you shouldn't post false information to your heart's content, would that make Bush/Obama dictators who hate freedom and want to wage war on openness? Heck, what if it was your very death that the website announced? Would you enjoy having to go around contacting everyone you could informing that you were still very much alive? Wouldn't you want that site to stop spreading those lies? Wouldn't you want that sort of action to be illegal? Of course you would. But suddenly, if Chavez mentions it then he becomes an evil, anti-freedom dictator? Go figure.
There are a lot of irrational, ill-informed anti-Chavez militants around and they don't hate Chavez because of anything he actually did. In fact, they don't base their hatred on anything. Their hatred for Chavez is their starting point and they pick up from there, grasping at straws to try to justify they hatred. Those irrational, anti-Chavez militants make it a point to accuse him of being a dictator although he is holding a democratically appointed position to which he was elected time and again and although he has been the target of multiple coup attempts, all of which were reverted by none other than Venezuela's people. Is that what being a dictator is about?
Personally, I don't like Chavez. I believe he is a demagogue who, at best, is trying to revolutionize a society which can barely manage to function. Yet, I'm always left dumbfounded by the string of primal anti-Chavez sentiment which is based on nothing more than the ill-informed imagination of a hand-full of idiots who don't even know why they hate him. That is to be expected among the great unwashed masses but hell, this is supposed to be slashdot, a place where informed, educated people tend to read and post news. This sort of nonsense shouldn't take place here.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Wait, wait, the coup attempt in 1992 was directed by Chavez, not targeting him. He was elected in 1999.
Oblivion Awaits
I wish I could mod you to +6 insightful.
Corrections: NoticieroDigital is a forum; the false news was posted by users not the website owner; sadly it took long to be moderated; the government has been already working on implementing a Unique Point of Access to Internet using government's owned ISP saying that is only for "performance enhancement"; Chavez complaints ALWAYS are literally assumed by the government because if you don't think like "The Leader" (he's called like that....) and work toward everything Chavez says then you'll be labeled "traitor" and banished from the government (yes, like a fascist government). I recommend you to get your facts straight before attacking citizens of a country like you're doing it.
and risking jail time, what else do you expect form a dictator?
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
We already have a government that can monitor everything you say, including non-public correspondence where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You think outright censorship is very far away?
The government does not need to censor the media. The media censors itself. This news item is a perfect example of the hysterical bias of corporate outlets. When Paul Bremer shut down the radical Iraqi newspaper Al Hawza for publishing false stories in Iraq, for the safety and security of Iraqis, there was no public outcry of dictatorship or communist ideals. They just said it was a bad decision.
Chavez came out with a statement saying, "The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms." He's basically pushing for public support of laws that require journalistic integrity. In effect, he's arguing for libel laws that already exist in much of the Western world to be applied to media outlets on the internet.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that has active internet censorship. Where are the news articles about that? How about Pakistan? How about Egypt?
The Press Law, Publications Law, and the penal code regulate and govern the press. According to these, criticism of the president can be punished by fines or imprisonment. Freedom House deems Egypt to have an unfree press, although mentions they have a diversity of sources. Reporters Without Borders 2006 report indicates continued harassment and, in three cases, imprisonment, of journalists. They place Egypt 143rd out of 167 nations on press freedoms. The two sources agree that promised reforms on the subject have been disappointingly slow or uneven in implementation. Freedomhouse had a slightly more positive assessment indicating that an increased freedom to discuss controversial issues has occurred. -WikiPedia
Chavez is a current propaganda tool for the West. He's no saint, but I get tired of news media who are either unwilling or unable to report balanced information.
Chavez is a dictator and obviously
[citation needed]
You can't take the sky from me...
"The thing is, I bet your country doesn't allow absolute freedom of speech"
We have the 1st amendment, and it is almost absolute when it comes to political freedom of speech. Probably the only thing you couldn't do is advocate for the murder of an elected official.
I realize that it's fashionable to defend the dictator-for-life Chavez, but he is a classic South American banana republic dictator. But that's not surprising; you can find lots of website that defend North Korea and their leader for life Kim Jong Il.
I think the word is "useful idiot", but I would never call someone by that name.
anyone who opposes the US acting like it owns the world in general and the hemisphere in particular is alright by me.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Things like this shows why internet, in its pure, free (in all meanings), unfiltered and universally available way should get a nobel peace prize. And why all that claim to be free countries must push forward to make it keep going in that way, or face what they really are.
They've has picked the wrong point. The lesson to be learned from the unfounded news posting should not have been that the internet needs less freedom. It should be that you shouldn't trust unconfirmed website posts you read online.
People need to learn to not trust every rumor they read from stupid hoax chain mails and random web postings. And this goes for not just online, but for all aspects of life. You have to learn how to analyze what you hear and read, and decide for yourself what to trust and believe. Not that the government needs to filter all communication that may reach you, in order to ensure it is a "truth" that you should believe.
But of course, with a dictator like Chavez, what other reaction would you expect?
the means to u.s. censorship, acta was prepared, cooked and started in bush & co period.
Read radical news here
is there any difference in between directly censoring something because it is detrimental to your interests and indirectly making them subdue by legal claims of ownership and patents ?
in the former, at least everyone knows it is censorship. in the latter censorship is veiled with seemingly valid excuses. in the end both end up the same.
Read radical news here
Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil reservoirs outside the US and the middle east. To make matters worse, they kicked out foreign oil companies because they want to exploit them themselves.
So I can see a lot of interest to oust the current government. By domestic and international interests that would love to see Chavez gone. Please do note that I neither say it is so nor that it ain't so. I am not in Venezuela, I just watch the whole deal from afar with a keen interest because Venezuela and the thing going on in the country and around it are a prime example of a propaganda war happening.
Take EVERYTHING you hear about Venezuela with a grain of salt. Make that an ounce. Or more. Verify with as many sources as you can, and forget about "independent sources". If you can find one, please inform me, I couldn't. Take all the propaganda from ALL sides and draw your conclusions afterwards.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
'The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done.
That's the definition of the internet. An open communications network where anything can be said and done.
If someone implements controls, then by definition it's no longer the internet, and we no longer really have any reason to connect our networks to Venezuela, if they start putting controls in place.
In other words, I say blacklist them, cut them off, blacklist them, if they start trying to make something the very opposite of the internet.
They are damage, cut them off, and route around them, before they manage to do any more serious damage, such as spreading their philosophy to other countries.
Most Venezuelans aren't too fond of Fox News either. Try Amnesty International (not much useful information - you have to dig a bit) and Reporters Without Borders instead. The part about compulsory broadcasting his half-day-long speeches is priceless.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
For example, imagine that a media company such as Fox/CNN/whatever decided to run stories on how Bush/Obama was assassinated. Imagine that that media company decided not only to post that information but also kept it up for days, although it was repeatedly contacted to be informed that no, Bush/Obama was still very much alive. If, after that, Bush/Obama complained that you shouldn't post false information to your heart's content, would that make Bush/Obama dictators who hate freedom and want to wage war on openness?
Let's take a real example: Fox News calling a number of Republican representatives and senators Democrats when they were caught with some sex scandal. What happened? Nothing. And quite frankly, nothing should have happened. Maybe the DNC could have sued for slander, but what happened was exactly what was supposed to have happened.
Contrast that with Chavez's posturing, who wants to control what gets posted to the Internet. There's no need to knee-jerk, because it is patently obvious what's happening: someone wants a method to shut people down when they become bothersome.
And for the record, that's exactly the outcry that comes up here in the US when a wannabe dictator tries to implement rules like that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
In free countries, it's recognized that you can't defame public officials.
A) Bullshit. Do you read ANY political writings online? Half the writing you see is defaming pubic officials in one form or another. Or do you not remember people calling Bush hitler, if that is not defamation then what is?
B) Is it even defamation to claim someone has been killed when they are still alive? That's wrong, but technically not defamation since it says nothing about the character of the person.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).
You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists. Just because it's not the way you like it doesn't make it illegitimate.
He served his maximum of two terms. How can you be booted if your maximum contract that cannot be renewed has ended?
Stop lying to yourself.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).
Good point, he should have said "Chavez is a dictator who is very good at PR."
Executive
The Venezuelan president is elected by a vote with direct and universal suffrage, and is both head of state and head of government. The term of office is six years, and (as of 15 February 2009) a president may be re-elected an unlimited number of times. The president appoints the vice-president and decides the size and composition of the Cabinet and makes appointments to it with the involvement of the legislature. The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections.
Legislative
The unicameral Venezuelan parliament is the Asamblea Nacional ("National Assembly"). Its 167 deputies, of which three are reserved for indigenous people, serve five-year terms and may be re-elected for a maximum of two additional terms. They are elected by popular vote through a combination of party lists and single member constituencies.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
In free countries, it's recognized that you can't defame public officials.
The standard in the U.S. is based on malice. You were out to do damage.
You broadcast something you knew was a lie or demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth.
Free societies do not remain free when their elected representatives can be slandered into political oblivion.
Defamation and the First Amendment
By the very nature of the concept of government we will always have tension as no government will ever want to allow the total free flow of information. As an example some of our military and national security budgets are totally hidden. In one case even the top branch of government is kept from knowing the source of some military funding. I can understand that. But where it gets all messed up is in the public not being able to find out if the military has enough funding and therefore picking candidates for office is compromised. One candidate may call for a reduction in funding while his opponent wants to increase funding. That makes voting and even the notion of elections sort of a joke.
Apparently the CIA and perhaps other secret agencies set up private businesses which covertly send in funds from their profits. But there are no living officials who know where those funds come from and the cash simply arrives from anonymous senders. There isn't even a way to turn that flow of money off.
Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).
Read more news (and history) then. Hitler and Mussolini were elected too, you know. Chavez has shut down opposition newspapers, thrown political opponents into jail, supported the leftist-cum-terrorist operations of FARC in Columbia, is best buds with the Castro brothers, etc. All of which adds up to me as dictator-like behavior. He first came to notice after a failed coup attempt in 1992 - and when he did come to power, became one of the leaders of the OPEC cartel, reducing production to boost oil prices.
See http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentsofsouthamerica/p/09HChavez.htm - a generally sympathetic view of him as a leftist reformer, but his dictatorial aspirations are clear.
Plus, he's just a lying SOS and enemy of the US, just on general principles (or lack thereof). Most recently, he accused US of being responsible for the Haiti earthquake ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html ) using some magical new weapon no one else has heard of. Evidence of the paranoid style and demonization of some "enemy" which is page one of the dictator's handbook.\p>
Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election,
Oh, get serious. Chavez certainly isn't the first dictator who started out by getting elected.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists.
Wait, it was fair because the system -exists- and we should forget about it? So I suppose you'd say that because the system of "Castro is the only one on the ballot" was in existence for Cuba's recent history, Castro was the fairly and legitimately elected democratic president of Cuba, and people should "let it go?"
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Large oil reserves. There is a correlation between oil and domestic political problems. You might even think there are groups trying to sabotage each other.
Deleted
Scandalous!
It's almost like the people living there think they run
the place.
We'll soon sort them out.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Those irrational, anti-Chavez militants make it a point to accuse him of being a dictator although he is holding a democratically appointed position to which he was elected time and again and although he has been the target of multiple coup attempts, all of which were reverted by none other than Venezuela's people. Is that what being a dictator is about?
In short: Yes, if you include repeatedly changing the constitution to extend or eliminate the legal restrictions on presidential terms, dissolving checks and balances on presidential power... then that is exactly what being a dictator is about.
That is to be expected among the great unwashed masses but hell, this is supposed to be slashdot, a place where informed, educated people tend to read and post news. This sort of nonsense shouldn't take place here.
You must be new here :-)
While I agree with you that most comments here show knee-jerk reactions, I find them more balanced - both sides are well represented by lots of people who don't know what they're talking about, and don't realize the implications such ignorance on the constituency could have on foreign policy (or lack thereof). But that's not a new or unexpected state of affairs.
If anything, I find the other side of ignorance more irritating in its hypocrisy: when people love Chavez just because he insulted Bush in public, and pretend to be more liberal and better informed because of that - as if the purpose of other governments, their policies and their consequences is to provide commentary for dinner party debates about tax-cuts in the US; and an habit of denouncing trade partners on TV and rejecting any help as 'imperialist interventions' out of personal pride and political posturing was worth a few thousand lives.
At least the reactionary knee-jerks are more likely to acknowledge their reaction is more based on emotional and political bias ('he dresses in red! he goes to Cuba!') than to lecture others on how informed they are because they read some wikipedia articles, or even saw a documentary! (as long as it matched their bias).
Yeah, what cheek! What's next, wanting to choose their government system and still wanting to participate in international trade?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
..for America to finally invade Venezuela aswell then, since they can handily use regime change as a reason for it.
I think my sig says it very well.
For those not logged in:
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge,
For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
Those in power, even in a "Free" country, fear the free flow of information, ideas, comments by the people.
And for those of you that catch it, yes, my sig a a paraphrase of Pravin Lal's bio from SMAC, which I'll also include because its worth reading.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Whatever the case may be, he certainly wasn't overwhelmingly elected. If anything that may make it more legitimate, but it also makes the post you're replying to accurate.
I agree on most of your points but I think it should be added that for all Chavez's many faults, his administration has dumped billions into Venezuela's public infrastructure. Chavez is a rich oil guy that differs from that opportunistic, wealth-obsessed Bush/Cheney/RIce mold. There are significant, long-term policies in place in a lot of South American countries, and the next decade there could be a significant power shift in the Americas. Here in the U.S. our roads and bridges are crumbling, no public health care, a public education system caving in on itself, literacy rates dropping, infant mortality and hunger increasing, all with our primary focus aimed at our war machine and giving a minuscule number of rich corporations a blank check to continue their self-obsessed ways. Countries like Venezuela however, while struggling with this U.S. triggered world economic recession have been creating a stable infrastructure to base their futures on. Look at how Chile is handling their earthquake disaster in contrast to how we dealt with Katrina/New Orleans.
Chavez is just another tinpot dictator with a really small penis who doesn't like it when people don't bow down and kiss his ass. The sooner the people step up and bitchslap the little wanker the better.
Chavez certainly isn't the first dictator who started out by getting elected.
-jcr
Plenty of dictators started out by getting elected, but the stress is on the "started out". You can only reasonably call democratically-elected people dictators if and only if elections are subsequently abolished. Leaders who are still serving a term for which they were elected cannot be called dictators, unless you are seriously stretching the use of language.
The reason Chavez in called a dictator (mainly in the American media) is because it easier to call someone an emotive word than discuss the issues; compare the use of the word "terrorist".
How about you follow that link and learn about the one in April 11, 2002 against Chavez?
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Following the US GOP too...
Hypocrisy is when one pretends to believe something one does not. Not when one has lofty ideals they can't quite live up to.
Also, the need to be "right, no matter what" is what drives many scientists. They demand proof and won't back down when someone tells them that something is wrong unless they supply proof that that thing is wrong. They especially will not give in if they have proof of something and someone is trying to deny it without even addressing that proof.
It would be virtually impossible for the President of the United States to sue the media or a private citizen for malice. In fact, I invite you to demonstrate your vast legal knowledge and show a case where it's actually happened.
If you are a public official at the national level, people will say that you're a chimp, you should die, I hope you die, you're a baby killer, you're just like hitler, hitler was actually better than you, you have sex with children, as heinous as you can think of, and you still won't be able to sue for malice. While a local official might be able to sue someone based on the cite you gave, no President could. The bar is simply too high.
Thus, the original poster is effectively correct. In a free country, you cannot defame a national public figure.
No, he wasn't. If Florida had been properly counted, Gore would have won even under our electoral college system. When you have Karl Rove and his band of thugs descending on election counting places shouting "Stop the count! Stop the count!" and a Supreme Court ruling against a state's rights to determine its own electors, you do not have a legitimate election.
Yes, because the only answer to tyranny is ignoring it or going along with it. Dumbass.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
It's only defamation if the assertion is false. If he turns out to be a flaming homosexual, it's not defamation.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
Maybe Chavez can put that scummy piece of filth Sean Penn in charge of the filtering.
Ah yes, of course anyone who is opposed to the US *must* be a dictator. [rolls eyes]
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I was pretty fine with Hugo until his whole president for life thing. Now I know who he really is. For once the right wing nutjobs might have been right about something.
there were people making fun of him on the web back in 2000/2001, i think they even bought a domain name similar to his name. and he said 'there is such a thing as too much freedom'. and i love your hatred of communism... what country was your computer made in again?
You can't deny that Venezuela would be better off without this guy, by whatever means, but preferably by election.
Although folks like yourself often think Che Guevera, The Castro Brothers, and Kim Jong Il are a model to follow ("Cuba, the Worker's Paradise!") mainly because you hate the United States. So to you this guy is a hero.
I feel very sorry for you, and your parents.
Wrong. The problem was specifically the phrase "The internet cannot be a free thing, each country has its rules. Regulation and laws."
When you combine that with the fact that the main communications network and the senate have been going on the press lately talking about how many advantages having a "single international communications access point" has, you can see where it's going. It's just easy to see things differently from the inside than from the outside.
Chavez was elected by a majority, but used these majority to crush the opponents. He destroyed the "checks and balances" from the minority. So He is indeed a Dictator.
"According to that first amendment, there are quite a few exceptions to the general protection that the constitution grants to the individuals, which include obscenity, fighting words and, which is the point of this discussion, defamation"
Really, I just looked through the 1st amendment I couldn't find them. But obviously there are laws about them, but fuckin-a, they don't seem to do much on obscenity, and damned if I can't download porn right on my cable box.
As for defamation, I can say Joe Biden is a drunken old fool who embarrasses himself and the country every time he slurs. I do it publicly on major web sites all the time using my real name. Joe wouldn't have a case against me for defamation, even though it's probably not true and it defames him. If I said the same thing about Chavez, I would disappear. He's funny like that.
"You have a weird notion of what is fashionable and a appallingly poor understanding of what a dictator is, let alone a dictator-for-life"
No, I have a very good grasp. I'm just telling the truth sonny boy. Or did you forget the last election where he strong-armed his way into doing away with term limits. I guess that was for the good of the people? I think folks like you who defend that little despot need to move there are experience first-hand the joy of living under that regime.
Or shutting down TV stations that "tell lies" about him. Of course, his opinion of a "lie" means:
"Shut the fuck up or you're going to jail"
Venezuela would be better off if that monkey Chavez died in a car accident, or something more deliberate. He's doing to Venezuela what Castro did to Cuba.
Oh right. Cuba is a wonderful place. I keep forgetting that. And the only people who want to get out are criminals.
I thought your kind died out in 1977, but apparently the "Che Guevara" fan club still exists for the clueless.
"I belive the term you must look into is "clueless idiot"."
You're right. Thanks for reminding me of the clueless idiots who think this guy is a freedom fighter.
This is what you always get with pure democracy: a dictatorship of the mob, and of the elitist demagogues that brainwash and control them. Any dictator in history could have been popularly elected, and anyone competent enough to seize power by force can seize it by deception just as well. Real freedom and prosperity comes from opposing statist collectivism in all its slogans (fascism, democracy, monarchy, minarchy, communism, socialism, etc) and embracing pure free market capitalism (aka Anarcho-Capitalism) instead!
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)
Those irrational, anti-Chavez militants make it a point to accuse him of being a dictator although he is holding a democratically appointed position to which he was elected time and again
All the elections held after 2004 were so biased and marred by irregularities that any first-world country would laugh at the idea of such frauds being considered valid in their own territory.
Even the staunchest Chavez supporters will admit that:
- Chavez's allies control the Electoral Board and have continuously changed the rules to whatever suits them.
- Chavez constantly abuses the state's resources (mostly the state's TV channel and enforced national broadcasts) to deliver blatant propaganda.
- Chavez openly engages in vote-buying operations before each election. The origin of the funds for such has never been clear.
This is without including many more claims brought forth by the opposition, which fall in deaf ears because Chavez openly controls all powers of the state.
and although he has been the target of multiple coup attempts, all of which were reverted by none other than Venezuela's people. Is that what being a dictator is about?
As another post said, the 1992 coup attempt was BY Chavez, not against Chavez. In the view of the government, supporters of the 1992 attempt are heroes and supporters of the 2002 attempt are criminals.
There is no possible way to label this fact as anything other than hypocrisy. And a government that uses its own hypocritical viewpoint to impose penalties on its citizens cannot be labeled anything other than a tyranny.
So why wasn't the first count accurate and fair?
What about the mandatory recount? Why wasn't it even after the canvassing board found no errors?
At what point is it fair and accurate? When it goes your way?
Do you think that the counters might be more likely to count fraudulently when they believe that only a few votes would swing it for their candidate?
Do you think the major media announcing the election "results" in Florida an hour before all of the polls were closed might have influenced the election?
Yes, because the only answer to tyranny is ignoring it or going along with it.
I suggest you go try living in a country with actual tyranny.
Dumbass.
OMG! Wow! You totally won me over with that. I've converted, I believe now! Calling me a "dumbass" was the most rational and convincing argument I have ever been exposed to!
Yes. Chavez shut down corporate bureaucracies which were printing propaganda to further their special interests. Its not a crime to prosecute slander on a well documented institutional level, but a protection of the common people's freedom to an open and accurate press (just look at the thousands of retractions hidden at the back of the Times each week); though I agree it could be a slippery slope for any nation to pursue on a case by case basis. It probably would be best to confront this issue at its source, namely the privatization of wealth and the privatization of the press.
Wait, wait, the coup attempt in 1992 was directed by Chavez, not targeting him. He was elected in 1999.
Yet he seems to enjoy calling his opponents "golpistas" almost every day on media broadcasts (golpe = coup).
He really likes to incite hatred among Venezuelans.
I know china also has bans on certain internet content for political reasons, controlling media is a classic dictator move, I don't feel that Chavez is doing anything that most of the world's leaders would hesitate to do if they thought they could get away with it.
come now, the Florida election in 2000 was badly flawed by the use of voter purges. The NAACP won a civil suit about this issue. http://archive.democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=10360 The system that exists was systematically abused by the Republican party in 2000. Even worse abuses were alleged in 2004, especially in Ohio. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html however, the subpoena in question could not be carried out due to the death of the IT consultant in a plane crash.
I find these stories quite funny. Let's not forget that Chavez was democratically elected, three times. He's a monkey, but a monkey voted for by his people. They have given him a mandate to fuck around to his stupid little heart's content.
Very much like that other little fucking monkey, Robert Mugabe. However, ol' Bob has had decades of time to monkey around and fuck things up.
What's my point? I have no fucking idea. They're all fucking monkeys fucking things up. Some are just more efficient monkeys than others. Maybe my point is to take it easy on ol' Hugo, give him time, he's just warming up. Please don't judge him on his looks - it's not his fault his face is a bit downsy.
By the time the stupid monkey electorate in Venezuela realize they've been fed their own shit in a recursive fashion, it'll be too late, as with ol' Bob and his monkey pals in Zimbabwe.
"mentions that Chavez complained about a specific website posting false information" Yes, there were postings that one of his ministers was dead... wrote by an user of their forum... and it was removed some time after when the forum admin noticed it. So, anyway, this is a good excuse to control the internet in Venezuela. Be at ease, this time was this fact, but it could have been anything, the government here don't care anymore if it can be used as an excuse or not...Things are made without any opposition, Justice and Congress are controlled by the government. The fear to Chavez's declarations is that, if we learned something from the past, is that if a threat is told by Chavez, it will be accomplished as soon as possible: take for examples the takeover of several industries (food industries at the east of the country), large commercial companies (fama de america, exito), malls (Sambil La Candelaria) farms, etc. Several with the excuse that they're strategic for the state (which business isn't?) or with no excuses at all... well and the most symbolic one, the "closedown" of one of the most critical TV channel, RCTV. (some in the forum said that they are still broadcasting on cable, and that is not true anymore). The best of all is that every trample to the private property is disguised as legal!!! So, my point is... the fear is founded, and we know what's coming next. Next, several links of expropiaciones, made by the government, there are a lot more, is only matter of google them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/economia/2010/01/100117_0029_exito_expropiacion_gm.shtml http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=163072&lee=10 http://www.vtv.gov.ve/noticias-nacionales/31666 http://www.enoriente.com/noticias-magazine-105/econommagazine-116/17262-expropiacion-de-fama-de-america-en-gaceta-oficial
It's very sad that such a popular leader (verified, clean elections extended his stay in power) can be so stupid... I used be on the side of Chavez, but in recent years the saying "absolute power, corrupts absolutely" is somewhat true, this together with his often crazy comments are discrediting the good he has done for the people. He should respect the founded democratic systems of the world and realise his time has come to step down.
"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."
In communist Venezuela, news censors government.
Hugo Chavez is a totalitarian with only the personal interest to remain in power. He is not even communist or socialist. Chavez does not worry about destroying his own country as long as he has the power. Over the past 11 years he has been wasting the money of what should have been a booming economy based on the high oil prices. Now an energy rich country even has power problems, and is proposing to have businesses close one day of the week to "save power". Chavez is just a total failure, and he wants to close any media or communication medium to avoid for the truth to be known.
You must live in Rushlimbaughstan. I can only imagine the potential for the United States and the world if we had leaders who cared about their country and the people living in it as much as Chavez does. (instead of catering to the ultra-wealthy)
look sig is kool
chavez is an ignoramus
>You can only reasonably call democratically-elected people dictators if and only if elections are subsequently abolished.
Bullshit. Plenty of dictators go through the motions of holding "elections" from time to time.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I was referring to fair elections. Obviously if elections are rigged then you could still have a situation where you had a dictator despite the presence of elections.
There are however no credible reports that Venezuela's elections were rigged. They had numerous international observers who declared themselves satisfied.
Even if you believe that Chavez is sufficiently corrupt to rig elections, there is no incentive for him to do so. He has massive popular support.
We lost. Deal with it.
"I'm still waiting for someone to sue Fox News for false advertising, since they call themselves a news station."
Nice put down, but whenever people say "Okay, Fox is awful, they make up stuff, they're not a real news channel", and you ask them something specific, it's usually "They're never say anything bad about conservatives" or "They don't report the real news".
It's never anything specific. It's always hand waving.
Sort of like your post. You have no specifics on Fox, but you won't let the lack of facts stop you.
That's not what I said. I was pointing out that he lies about US in a wild and paranoid style designed only to appeal to the prejudices of his base. Just like Hitler and the Jews.
The U.S. government maintains a "secret" program in partnership with the telecom monopolies to monitor all Internet traffic for "illegal" activity. Under the program, anyone arrested is not permitted to speak about it, EVER! The U.S. government implements a level of IP laws and copyright (will Mickey Mouse ever reach the public domain?) that far exceed those of any other country. The U.S. government refuses to allow Internet gambling solely because it might interfere with the billions it takes in from it's own gambling operations. When the U.S. government meets the standards it sets for everyone else, THEN you Americans will have the right to whine. In the meantime, continue fueling your cars with Venezuelan oil, buying so much from China that your country is going bankrupt, and using your U.N. Security Council veto to prevent Israel from being held accountable for the war crimes it commits because the rest of us love to see you make fools of yourselves as your nation sinks into the abyss.
What's funny is that under the definition given, there has never been a true dictator. There is always opposition.
What's funny is that under the definition given, there has never been a true dictator. There is always opposition.
"Amnesty International fears that this assault on key institutions of accountability, combined with sweeping emergency powers, will exacerbate existing patterns of human rights abuse, including torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and use of excessive force to suppress peaceful dissent,"
You can't take the sky from me...