Venezuelan Gov't Seeks Internet Content Bill

Ah, none is more coward! writes "Several local and international news outlets report that the overwhelmingly pro-Chávez Venezuelan National Assembly is considering a reform of their Social Responsibility law to include Internet content. Besides regulations on mature content and mandatory airing of government messages, the existing bill includes broad prohibitions against 'destabilizing' and 'disquieting' content. The Assembly also has a proposal for a single national Internet access point, 'with a view to handling outgoing and incoming traffic in Venezuela.'"

Comments

The final step.

[Requia]

And thus the last avenue of free speech in Venezuela dissapears.

Re:The final step.

[Timenerd]

It's coming in this country too.

Re:The final step.

[Requia]

I'm certainly not (really, the second they started taking state control of the local media this became only a matter of time), but maybe I can finally get the people who think that my anti Chavez attitude is somehow related to his economic policies to realize just how screwed up the Venezuelan government is.

Re:The final step.

[Nursie]

It seemed convenient for people to latch onto hate for him early one, what with him giving the finger to the US government and demanding profits from exploitation of natural resources remain in country.

But it turns out that he was an asshat, yep. I was one of those people, though haven't been for a little while now.

Re:The final step.

[jameskojiro]

But I though Hugo Chavez was a "man of the people" and a friend to the "average Jose" in his country.....

I thought it was a "Democratic Revolution" that happened in Venezuela when Chavez took over.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's al bullshit (I'm venezuelan). He's just another bullshitter.

Re:The final step.

[davester666]

Good thing you didn't specify which country, as it seems that all of them have a problem with the freedom the Internet gives to individuals.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem in the US is not the communists or socialists. The problem here is the corporatists.

Government is only following the corporate masters, moving us not in the direction of socialism but in the direction of fascism.

The "reset" that needs to happen is in the direction of a government that acts in the best interest of the people, and I'm not sure that's possible at this point. It's moving away from it almost everywhere else in the world, we're just doing it faster than most.

And we're getting so incredibly far from the ideal system at this point - a combination of individual freedom and guaranteed rights, and a socialized economic system with very tight government controls on big business is what we really should aspire to.

Re:The final step.

[vegetasaiyajin]

Government is only following the corporate masters, moving us not in the direction of socialism but in the direction of fascism.

That is not fascism. That is called mercantilism or reverse-mercantilism by some, which has many similarities to socialism as corporations and the government look like a larger colluding entity similar to what government is in regular socialism.

Americans often misunderstand fascism because it used the term corporatism, but what Mussolini called corporations have nothing to do with what Americans call corporations. Fascism was another form of socialism in the sense that it implied state control of the economy, but unlike traditional socialists it did not promote class struggle.

Re:The final step.

[Jeremy Erwin]

How the fuck did he take over your country

Lots of poor people.

Re:The final step.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Blah, blah, whatever. I can choose not to do business with a corporation. If I choose not to do business with the government, men with guns come and take me away.

I'll never understand where all the neo-statist rhetoric seen on forums like Slashdot and Reddit these days is coming from. Is there some frustrated poli-sci professor back east who's indoctrinating his students by awarding extra points for posting this tripe?

Re:The final step.

[shutdown -p now]

But I though Hugo Chavez was a "man of the people" and a friend to the "average Jose" in his country.....

He may well be. It's not unknown in history to have de facto dictatorships run by people who have broad popular support, and use that support to suppress the minority. Sometimes such support is created by state propaganda, as it was with Stalin. Sometimes it arises more or less spontaneously due to major dissatisfaction with the existing political system, such as it was with Hitler, and, more recently, Lukashenko and Putin. I wouldn't be surprised if Chavez falls into the latter category as well - most news from Venezuela seem to be consistent with that.

not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

No sir. No first would nation would ever do that.

The chief difference is that people in USA continue to tell themselves they are "free", despite all evidence to contrary, despite people imprisoned and tortured for politics reasons.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Third Position]

Well, free speech is protected in the US somewhat better than it is in most of the rest of the world. Not necessarily because our elites are any more virtuous, but because they've realized that they can let us rant and rave all we want, and there still isn't a damn thing we can do about them.

We may be free, but we're utterly powerless.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Wyatt Earp]

Where is Wikileaks being censored? The newspapers in the United States and abroad continue to publish the leaks they get, I've yet to see or hear about Federal agents going after the New York Times or anyone else.

Google - "Latest Wikileaks" and right now there are new headlines from 3 hours ago.

Is the US going after Wikileaks for distributing thousands of stolen documents? Yes but those documents were classified and stolen. Is the US going to put the guy who stole the documents, Bradley Manning, in a deep dark hole for a long time? Yes they are, he had a security clearance and knew what the rules were, he broke those rules.

As far as censoring and hunting Wikileaks down, the US Government is doing a pretty poor job of it.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Wyatt Earp]

That really describes speech in Canada.

Exactly how many people in the United States can you say have been jailed for insulting the Catholic Church, Islam, Scientology or Mormonism in the last 50 years?

Re:not like other countries would do that

[z-j-y]

liberals have become docile on slashdot. usually they are all over the first 50 post justifying dictators.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Solandri]

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

This is what I've been trying to say about the whole Wikileaks thing. Cause and effect is not a one-way street here. Wikileaks and its supports say they're doing it to help make government more transparent and root out corruption, and done properly it can do that. The problem is that many people seem to have this implicit assumption that exposing corruption automatically means it'll be fixed, and thus release of information guarantees the overall amount of corruption is lessened, and thus it's always beneficial to release information. But that's not the only possible outcome. Another possibility is that closed governments will see what Wikileaks is doing as validation of their closedness, and open governments will "see the error of their ways" and become more closed. In other words, what Wikileaks is doing can cause the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

Release of secret documents needs to be done in a judicious and controlled manner. There has to be very little controversy that the documents released do in fact pertain to corruption (or alleged corruption). Most of the citizens have to agree that it's a good thing the documents were made public in order to generate the socio-political will to fix the corruption. If you fail to do that, like Wikileaks is doing by indiscriminately releasing almost the entirety of the State Dept. docs, all you've done is convinced governments that they need to work harder to keep their secrets, and given them the support of a large portion of their citizens in doing it.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[makomk]

Where is Wikileaks being censored?

When the US Government put political pressure on their hosting and DNS providers and had the website shut down, I think that probably counted as consorship.

Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

Lets see :

In countries which control free speech directly, such laws are created. Its blunt, direct, you know what it is and there is no mistaking what it is.

In countries like usa, you are told you have free speech. But your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people. And, you cant do that unless you have enough money, or means. The moment you get the funds/means to actually talk to millions of people, you become a threat, unless what you say goes to the liking of the system. And then you are silenced, very much in the way wikileaks is being silenced -> with excuses, financial pressure, indirect pressure.

Of course, even the above is a grand, grand assumption -> fat chance that you will actually be able to reach millions of people, even if you have the money. 3-4 corporations dominate news and 'opinion making', and if they dont give you airtime, you wont reach anyone. The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed. Since, one cannot become VERY rich, or, create a news channel that would cater to hundreds of millions without complying with the system and hierarchy, all threats become averted.

But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely.

To sum it in short :

In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.

In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.

one might err in that, 'as long as you are free to earn money, you can practice your freedom'. that is incorrect.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms.

if, the chances of someone making it from the bottom to even middle ranks, is lower than a medieval peasant making it to a measly knighthood, it means 'you are free to try it' means 'you are free to try it, but fat chance you will make it'.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Requia]

So what's your solution? To prevent Fox news from speaking at all? Television is a limited resource, one way or another only certain people will be allowed to speak on it.

In the meantime, I'm speaking to you, and you are certainly not a friend, family, or part of my social circle.

  I can (and do) print political posters and put them up, and distribute flyers. So my voice is heard even by people I have never spoken too, and if the people choose to listen, I can reach a million people with a blog or youtube videos, without spending a single dime.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Just Another Poster]

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible.

The Internet in America is already under "corporate control", being almost entirely private, and as a result, it is one of the freest mediums on the planet.

Venezuela Like Always

[Anonymous Coward]

This is OLD news. Since around march of this year things got worse here. For example, from my city in Maracaibo i CAN NOT enter places like ytdb.ru where i work and learn mysql. This and many other sites are limited/restricted and sometimes CANTV (The main ISP of Venezuela) drops the connection without mentioning nothing about upgrades / maintenance service / takeovers, etc.. They NEVER admit they have a cable problem, network problem, isp problem, nothing. they are perfect. With this mention here they will NEVER admit they will block somebody, restrict a place, etc..

Nice moral equivalence

[MikeRT]

In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.

What you failed to mention is that it is actually reasonably within the reach of most Americans because the media they need for speech is available in ways it isn't in China or Venezuela. There are thousands of companies that will sell you print supplies without fear that they'll face "reeducation through labor" for selling to you. There are dozens of video sharing sites. $200 buys you a Flip or something similar for making your own basic videos.

So, hopefully others will understand when I say "fuck you, you sniveling leftist brat."

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

There are thousands of companies that will sell you print supplies without fear that they'll face "reeducation through labor" for selling to you. There are dozens of video sharing sites. $200 buys you a Flip or something similar for making your own basic videos.

Just like in 99% of the rest of the world. With one major difference: The US spends in intelligence and military more than the ten next countries combined. And you have more draconian laws than the rest of the world. Sure, you like comparing your country to China, Venezuela or Iraq. Well, compared to most of South America and Europe the US is a police state. I live in Argentina, and you can say all the deranged shit you want about us, most of that shit funded on the lack of information most people in the us have ... most of you think that most of south america looks like juarez city in mexico ... well, it doesn't.

In my country I can say whatever I want, I have free access to the internet, there is a place for independent media on national TV, and unlike the us, we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools, we don't have anti-terrorism laws, we can't be wiretapped without a court order, or arrested without rights by some shadowy agency. And we don't spend most of our budget bombing other countries and funding CIAs, FBIs and DHSs. That is true for most of the world.

I know you have a hard time facing the truth, but most of the world has way more freedom than the states.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Requia]

It has nothing to do with socialism, it's a standard political power grab. What it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue, thus distracting everybody from the real point.

and

[unity100]

what you are missing is, the SELL part in the 'sell you print supplies'.

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

the 'dozens of video sharing sites' are what has been bothering the establishment up till now, because, they have been providing the unwashed masses the ability to reach millions without having to pay heaps of cash. hence, the attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, hence acta, hence coica.

i see that you havent read the post you replied to. for, all your moot points were iterated in it.

Re:and

[Samantha Wright]

Nice backtracking. In your original post you said that to reach the multitudes, you would need to have enough money to buy off the media corporations—not to buy the supplies necessary to run a poster campaign, which is far cheaper. You're changing your position and it's sleazy as hell. Go troll somewhere else.

Re:and

[ryants]

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.

What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?

Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.

Re:From TFA

[MightyMartian]

The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him.

And I wish they'd get on with it. He's a man in serious need of being put six feet under.

My favorite moment was when Juan Carlos of Spain told him to shut up.

At least they're honest

[airfoobar]

And they won't call it a copyright enforcement measure.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[DesScorp]

It has nothing to do with socialism, it's a standard political power grab. What it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue, thus distracting everybody from the real point.

Socialism isn't just an economic philosophy. It's an all-encompassing political theory that de-emphasizes the individual and emphasizes the collective. The problem with socialism... demonstrated through the history of socialist governments... is that since we're not insects with a hive mind, individuals are going to rule that collective. And they've always been at the very least too nannying, and at worst, absolutely tyrannical. So this has everything to do with socialism, because the very philosophy is about a power grab... for the good of the people, of course.

weird how you can take any story ...

[Punctuated_Equilibri]

and turn it into an opportunity to vent against the USA. How about discussing the Venezuela story on its own merits? Single internet access point for the whole country, controlled by the government, good idea or no?

Dont err in thinking you will be free on Internet

[unity100]

all other means to access millions of people, OUTSIDE internet, requires huge capital or means. you need heaps of cash to buy 'printing supplies', as some commenter put it, to reach a hundred million people. you need heaps of cash to get your adverts on news channels. (that is if they accept your ad, even). you nead heaps of cash to get airtime. in short, your freedom is limited totally with your finances, and those who have finances determine who talks and who not.

at this point a lot of people err in thinking that 'you have internet !'... it is a mistake :

Internet is just a temporary 'abomination' establishment wants to fix.

in the current situation, an upstart like you and me can get up a site, and reach millions of people through it. actually, even doing that currently requires advertising capital or other means, however, lets say that it is much easier to exercise your freedom of speech on the internet than anywhere else. lets say, at least there are sites like this slashdot, this, that, already big traffic mediums in where you can reach people. so, we are dangerous.

that is precisely why they have come up with endless schemes to bring internet under control and make it like a private cable network, or publishing mediums, in which only the richest will be able to reach noticeable amount of people in a nation:

anti network neutrality : aims to allow backbone providers and isps to charge websites for the traffic - the more traffic, the more charge you will have -> so, if you happen to reach hundreds of millions of people perchance, with your free speech, you will need to have the heaps of cash to pay for it. if you dont, youre cut off from millions of people with every major isp that censors you. and it will be legal, and compatible with first amendment too !

acta : supposedly anti counterfeiting treaty, it gives censorship in the hands of a privately appointed commission from private industries, and gives the ability to shut down sites on dubious grounds, without court order.

coica : you know what it is. this is the government version of controlling.

there are a few more in the works.

so, as you can see, it would be an utter folly to think that 'we are free' on the internet. we are TEMPORARILY free, and the system is trying to fix that. once it 'fixes' that, you will need precisely similar amounts of finances in order to be able to be 'dangerous' with the power of your free speech. in that state, what will happen will be precisely be the same with the outside-internet life ; just like you are free to blabber to your friends, family, coworkers, people in your bar and post a few flyers around the town, you will be free to blabber in this or that forum, put up a small blog to see 50 people a day read your views and so on. but, you wont be able to set up a blog with $20 cost to you yearly, and reach millions, if your views get popular, or you have the finances to engage in medium amount of internet advertising. internet advertising also requires considerable money, and that is also a similarity with the outside-internet situation, but, it is still accessible for at least the middle class in regard to the amount required.

so, if the private interests reach their goal in ANY of the ways above, your freedom will be as limited on internet as it is limited outside internet : free in proportion to the amount of money in your bank. judging from the wikileaks incident, one can easily say that if you really become dangerous to the system, you will be 'taken care of'.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern

[Wyatt Earp]

Completely wrong on that it takes huge capital to reach the masses without the Internet.

Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.

Of course your book or manifesto has to say something coherent and interesting enough that anyone out there would be interested in reading it. Of course even the neo-luddite writings of the Unibomber were published. Hitler did a good job at getting his book written, Barak Obama wasn't all that well known or wealthy when he started getting his books published.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Zouden]

Which is why the Scandinavian countries are oppressive hell-holes ruled by tyrannical dictators...