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.'"

Comments

Way to go

[betterunixthanunix]

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."

Re:Way to go

[binarylarry]

You must be new... to Venezula.

They used to have private TV broadcasters you know...

Re:Way to go

[dskzero]

I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government. The other one is on the verge of not having its licence renewed. It's not a belief: It's a fact. THe rest of the tv stations are simply silent to Chavez abuse of power. Regardless of your opinion, the abuse of power is a fact, whether you think it's for a good or a bad thing. He also closed down several radio stations out of the weird justification that they were all part of a large network. The thing to learn in Venezuela is that you can't really be too successful.

Re:Way to go

[causality]

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."

While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).

The inability to handle dissent is just an essential feature of the authoritarian mentality. I think it's caused by both an inability to lead by example (i.e. hypocrisy) and a profound personal insecurity that makes the person feel they need to be "right" no matter what. That's why anyone who offers dissent, however well-founded, is seen as an enemy and must be shut down. Nowhere in this do you find an awareness of the person's fallibility or an ability to feel gratitude towards those who help them shed false ideas. Their overinflated egos won't allow that. That's why it never occurs to these people that truly sound policies and truly good actions have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

It's also more evidence that Frank Herbert was right when he said: "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

Re:Way to go

[dskzero]

Wait, wait, were you here when the coup happened? Because I could speak at lenghts about all that happened there, including Chavez taking up on a national forced broadcast - which happens bassically every damn day - and when it ended, a bunch of people - including journalists - had been shot by snipers. RCTV has been denied all casting on Venezuela, this is a fact. Even when the earthquake on Chile, the national broadcast by the president was an *optional* lending of space by the private TV stations. Here, it's forced and a daily thing for as much as Chavez saying he's pissed off at the internet. RCTV decided they weren't going to take it, and they were denied of the licence. Now they are applying that to every TV station, including cable tv, which is an entirely new thing. Now he wants to do the same to the internet. Either you are with him, or, apparently, you have to remain silent. If it isn't something intrinsically linked to a dictatorship, well, something is wrong with the world.

Re:Way to go

[HungryHobo]

If you had done 10 seconds research you'd have noticed that this wasn't about a news story posted on the website.
It was some random users posting a rumour on the forums.
Not the website owners.

Essentially he wants to kill open online forums.

From google translate:

On the evening of Saturday, the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez has asked the Attorney General's Office and the Minister Diosdado Cabello take legal action against this site by false rumors posted two new forumers in one of our forums and concerned the alleged murder of two ombudsmen linked to the Government.

Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Can we just accept that he's evil yet?
he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen.

Re:Way to go

[HungryHobo]

Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly.
If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.

Re:The same kind of policies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon to Obamaland!

Americans seriously need to get over their "it can't happen here" mentality. That mentality only means it will happen more slowly, with smaller and more calculated steps instead of a few sudden movements like this one. 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?

Prior art

[the_raptor]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not according to Sean Penn

[ralx]

A dictatorship is a president (elected or not) that takes control of all public powers, change the constitution and laws to adapt them for his own plans and then kill every corner of freedom (slow or fast) to the point that there's no real opposition in the country, that massive media is cornered or adapted to please him and since he adapted laws for him to create the possibility of infinite reelections then he could stay on power for decades.... That's Hugo Chavez.

"The internet should not be a free thing"

[arielCo]

The rumor was posted anonymously in well-known forum Noticiero Digital, which is intermittently moderated, if at all. Local TV news station Globovisión (strongly critical of Chávez's government, and a frequent target of regulatory action) quotes Chávez (in Spanish):

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).

Re:The same kind of policies...

[causality]

"You think outright censorship is very far away?"

Actually, yes, it is. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere. You don't need to get over an "it can't happen here" mentality, you need to get over your baseless paranoia.

Three words for you: free speech zones. If you're not familiar with the logic behind them, please look it up. In a nutshell, the (bullshit) "logic" is that the FIrst Amendment guarantees free speech, but does not specify where that right may be exercised. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Constitution does not list specific locations because it applies everywhere in the USA, but that doesn't suit the authoritarian mentality. So now they can tell you that you may not practice free speech where any decision-makers are likely to hear you, right here in the USA.

The dangers of that path, of allowing such flimsy and easily-abused exceptions to what are supposed to be inalienable rights, are both extreme and seldom appreciated. It is not the right way; it is not a good path. It also sets a precedent.

So, they already get around that pesky Constitution when it comes to physical protests. The only real surprise will be if they don't find such clever ways to skirt the First Amendment when it comes to the Internet. That's the mentality you're dealing with here. It will because it can, and any excuse will do.

Calling it "baseless paranoia" suggests that it's impossible or extremely unlikely, that nothing like this has ever happened before, that there's no reason not to trust our federal government. It's neither "baseless" nor is it "paranoia" if you actually take a look at the direction in which this country has been heading. Of course, that will require that when you see a spade, you call it a spade. Some people have a much easier time with this than others. Obviously others prefer to bury their heads in the sand and label as "paranoid" anyone who makes that a little less comfortable.

Re:Another anti-Chavez ill-informed kneejerk react

[dskzero]

Wait, wait, the coup attempt in 1992 was directed by Chavez, not targeting him. He was elected in 1999.

Re:That's the plan

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[citation needed]

People can say and think whatever thay want.

"Think", yes; there's no Thought Police in sight. "Say", yes too unless it's printed / broadcast in any major news outlet, and even then you only have to pack up in advance of the defamation "suit".

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.

Again [citation needed]. Straw man anyone?

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.

They attack their government, which is not the same. Shall I explain the difference to you?

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.

Yeah, I guess 16,000 homicides last year in a 24MM people country make for a lot of peace on the streets. And 27% inflation brings rainbows and puppies all around.

At the risk of pissing off Sean Penn

[Low Ranked Craig]

and risking jail time, what else do you expect form a dictator?

Re:Sure it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The same kind of policies...

[Attila Dimedici]

Three words for you: free speech zones.

You make a good point. Fortunately, on those occasions when University free speech zones (the setting in which they are most commonly applied) have been challenged in court, they have usually been ruled unconstitutional.
That being said, it is interesting that the people who implement these "free speech zones" are those who claim to be the strongest proponents of unfettered free speech. They are, also, from whom many of the members of the Obama Administration have been drawn.