By this time next week, the Venezuelan government will have stripped RCTV of its broadcast license.
To counter the growing number of critics of that decision, the Venezuelan government will make excuses.
They will claim that RCTV represents only a fringe of the opposition.
They will claim RCTV can still operate outside of broadcast media.
They will claim that plenty of other pro-opposition media still exist.
They will claim the ownership of RCTV supported the 2002 coup.
They will point to other countries and try to show worse forms of censorship.
They will attack the critics of the decision on both a personal and political level.
They will bring up unrelated issues to distract from the RCTV decision.
They will claim that the rest of the world has no right to criticize a domestic decision.
Yet, when all the excuses are laid on the table, one simple fact remains. The Venezuelan government is censoring a media outlet that dissents to the government’s political views.
In doing so, they are sending a message to every other media outlet in the country. If the government can do this to RCTV, then your TV station or your newspaper or your radio station or your website can be next if you cross the wrong line in political speech.
It’s not as visually obvious as a mass book burning. It’s not as brutal as the assassination of a journalist. It’s not as extreme as the elimination of free media throughout the country. However, in spite of any excuses they may give, there is no doubt that this is censorship.
81 comments:
Cogently and succinctly written, and yup, totally agree. Censorship is censorship, no matter the mode, and the message is not lost, neither por afuera nor por adentro, where other Venezuelan media will self censor. The Castro lite approach, for sure, but with the same result: Stifled dissenting voices or voices that parrot the (soon to be one) party line.
Boz you forgot the most used "They will..." They will claim assassination attempts and destabilization by Colombia (oh sorry that was yesterday!), they Unted States, and the opposition.
Just keep your eyes out for that famous bazooka :)
There's a lot to comment on regarding this post. In fact, if I felt like spending a little time on this, I could quite easily rip your whole argument apart and lay bare the completely superficial assumptions upon which your argument rests. However, I don't feel like spending a lot of time on this at the moment, so I'll just propose a few simple questions.
In the event that a U.S. television station were to favorably broadcast statements by military officials calling for the overthrow of the United States' government, would you claim that the television station had the freedom to do just that? What if that television station's owner not only advocated a coup but actively abetted one, even going so far as to censor any sign of protest against the coup when it occurred? If a major U.S. television station were to engage in such activities, would you honestly suggest that its incitations to overthrow a democratically-elected government should go unpunished?
Some honest answers would be nice.
Easiest questions you've ever asked Justin.
If a US television station "favorably broadcast statements by military officials calling for the overthrow of the United States' government", I would defend their right to do so, even if I disagreed with their position.
If a US television station choose to broadcast cartoons rather than protests, I would defend their right to do so, even if I disagreed with their position.
If they violated the law in some way, they could be prosecuted (not just ruled down by decree of the president). However, broadcasting, or choosing not broadcast, political speech is not a crime.
I believe in freedom of speech, and not just when it is politically convenient. You make excuses for authoritarian governments. It's the basic political difference between us.
Having worked in the broadcasting business, actually what would happen in the US, assuming what happened was exactly as Justin described it, is this: someone would file a complaint and the FCC would investigate and probably fine them. There might also be public hearings as well as a petition to deny the license renewal.
What would not happen would be the president simply determining that the license would not be renewed. He lacks the power.ueteglj
Also note that all the private TV channels supported the protests and the coup. But while the others became more and more apolitical and cozied up to the government, RCTV remained implacably hostile to Chavez. It is thus the only station (so far) losing its licence.
Having worked in the broadcasting business, actually what would happen in the US, assuming what happened was exactly as Justin described it, is this: someone would file a complaint and the FCC would investigate and probably fine them. There might also be public hearings as well as a petition to deny the license renewal.
Thank you for that refreshingly honest answer, Randy.
In other words, under U.S. law, RCTV would be subject to legal sanction, including a likely denial of its license renewal (which is precisely what has happened in Venezuela). Yes, there's a reason why U.S. television channels would not broadcast calls for the overthrow of a democratically-elected U.S. administration. Namely, that would be illegal.
But, of course, you don't see Boz screaming to high heaven that the United States violates freedom of speech by forbidding broadcasted calls for the extra-constitutional overthrow of U.S. administrations.
Now, as for the legal procedure by which the Chavez government has denied the renewal of RCTV's broadcast license, that's an institutional question. Perhaps one could make a sound case that, in the interest of separation of powers, a regulatory commission that is institutionally independent of Venezuela's executive branch should exercise discretionary power over broadcast licensing. However, that's quite different than saying that RCTV has the right to call for the extra-constitutional overthrow of Venezuela's government. It is really quite absurd for Boz to claim, in effect, that Venezuelan prohibitions against broadcasted calls for the overthrow of the country's democratically-elected government are somehow draconian. We know that Boz's criticisms aren't in good faith because the types of prohibitions that he now decries are, in fact, the norm among democratic states (including the United States).
As I said Justin, if they did violate the law, they could be prosecuted. That's not what happened. In Venezuela, the president made the decision to revoke the license based on the political views of the station. The president's personal involvement in pushing for the shut down shows the political nature of the censorship.
I was glad to see Human Rights Watch agrees with my position in their statement today.
For the record, if the FCC tried to shut down a US TV station based on political speech including the examples you gave, I'd be very opposed. I hope to never see that level of censorship in my country.
Justin,
I'm always honest.
The only time I remember a broadcaster losing his license in the US was one in Indiana (whose name escapes me at the moment) who was convicted of pedophilia and only lost his license after the conviction and after a separate administrative law hearing by the FCC.
In other words, a convicted pedophile had far more rights in the USA than RCTV had in Venezuela.
Another question remains: who has more credibility on the issue, Justin or Human Rights Watch. I'll go with HRW in this case.
Actually, the pedophilia case was in Missouri and Indiana. The convicted pedophile was Michael Rice. You can read more about it here.
"Having worked in the broadcasting business, actually what would happen in the US, assuming what happened was exactly as Justin described it, is this: someone would file a complaint and the FCC would investigate and probably fine them. There might also be public hearings as well as a petition to deny the license renewal."
Thank you for that refreshingly honest answer, Randy.
"In other words, under U.S. law, RCTV would be subject to legal sanction, including a likely denial of its license renewal..."
Well executed Justin.
In other words, you aren't listening. RCTV did not break any laws, and therefore this situation wouldn't happen in the USA as it did in Venezuela.
"Another question remains: who has more credibility on the issue, Justin or Human Rights Watch. I'll go with HRW in this case."
Yes, rather than trying to debate the actual points (which you are incapable of doing), you'll just defer to a tried-and-true Washington whore like Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch. Why am I not surprised?
Actually, Randy did debate the actual issue of censorship and regulation before throwing in that parting shot.
On the other hand, you point to random articles about Colombia and try to discredit the critic rather than discuss the issue at hand which is censorship in Venezuela. If you dislike Human Rights Watch's criticisms of Chavez's censorship, why don't you address them directly?
Actually, Boz, Randy didn't address any of my points.
Boz, your arguments are so superficial that they're really not worth my time. Perhaps if I'm really bored one of these days, I'll spell out what is so completely facile about your analysis. Right now, I have more interesting things to attend to.
Justin, everyone on this thread is addressing the issue of censorship in Venezuela. Randy and I both responded to your question about whether the issue applies in the US. You simply didn't like the responses.
they're really not worth my time
But you keep coming back. By your actions, you think my arguments are worth your time. You just hate admitting it.
Sorry for the delay, Justin, I was busy wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes.
You dredge up a seven year old Counterpunch article for your argument that Vivanco is a "whore" without looking at HRW's recent work re: Colombia.
F for effort. Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is Delacour.
So if you don't like HRW and RSF, how about AI? The Inter-American Press Association? The Committee to Protect Journalists?
Somehow your calling Vivanco a whore, reeks of projection, Justin.
I answered your questions. You're the only one here dodging the truth.
You're the only one here dodging the truth.
Truth?? What "truth" do you speak, Randy?
You've made only two points with regard to the RCTV case, both of which I've addressed and neither of which I've contested. You made the point that, in the United States, RCTV would indeed be subject to legal sanction. And then you made the point that the U.S. executive branch doesn't have jurisdiction over broadcast licensing.
Notice that you yourself haven't made a case for renewing RCTV's broadcast license. Instead, you simply defer to others on that question (presumably because you're incapable of formulating a cogent argument).
Justin,
Poppycock. I haven't made the case for renewing the license because that is not my role here.
I find the process by which the renewal to be denied to be very undemocratic, in response to your question and I proved by citing an actual example that it would not happen that way here.
The fact is, a convicted pedophile, a sex offender, received a fairer hearing than the principals of RCTV.
You attempted to smear Jose Miguel Vivanco, so I cited recent work of his organization on the subject that contradicts your nearly decade-old smear. I also cited other reputable organizations that shared Vivanco's sentiments re: RCTV.
You're moving the goalposts, Justin. That's not the work of an intellectually honest debater.
Just to clarify, Justin, I didn't make the point that RCTV would be subject to legal sanction, I mentioned that they could be and it would entail an extensive, formal complaint process that I might add, rarely succeeds.
Indeed, I made the point with the example I cited that a felony conviction of the license holder might be a likely set of circumstances in which a radio station owner might lose his FCC license. The example I cited, while not sui generis, is somewhat limited in application as the sole shareholder in the corporation was the person convicted of a felony.
It seems likely to me based on my professional experience that if there were several parties involved in the ownership of a licensee, that the party convicted of the felony would be required to divest their interest in the licensee, but the licensee would remain the same,
Just to clarify, Justin, I didn't make the point that RCTV would be subject to legal sanction, I mentioned that they could be and it would entail an extensive, formal complaint process that I might add, rarely succeeds.
You know as well as I, Randy, that if a U.S. television station were to favorably broadcast statements by military officials calling for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the United States' government, legal sanctions would follow. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting just published an excellent analysis of U.S. media coverage of the Venezuelan government's decision not to renew RCTV's broadcast license ("Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs: Distorting the Venezuelan media story"). FAIR's analysis includes a number of observations that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Here's a long excerpt:
That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."
As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."
When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):
"What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles."
The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.
When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists—all groups that have condemned Venezuela's action in denying RCTV's license renewal—he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV's actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups' arguments, "Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?"
McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
"The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves."
The problem here, Randy, is that your responses to me are entirely reflexive. Independently of what I actually write, you have to disagree with me because I've hurt your feelings before.
Calm yourself, pobrecito. Only by calming yourself will you be able to engage in a rational manner. Only then will you be able to sensibly respond to what I've actually written (instead of reflexively responding to your own feverish misinterpretations of what I've written).
Now, let's review what I wrote:
Now, as for the legal procedure by which the Chavez government has denied the renewal of RCTV's broadcast license, that's an institutional question. Perhaps one could make a sound case that, in the interest of separation of powers, a regulatory commission that is institutionally independent of Venezuela's executive branch should exercise discretionary power over broadcast licensing.
Now, notice here that I've clearly stated that one COULD MAKE A CASE that a reform of Venezuela's institutional rules of the game is in order. Unfortunately, in the midst of your feverish fatwa against me, you're incapable of seeing that I haven't argued that one couldn't make a case for a reform of Venezuela's political institutions. I'm open to the idea that institutional reform could be in order, but, unfortunately, you don't put forth any argument as to what such institutional reform should look like. Thus, your criticisms ring quite hollow. You seem to be arguing that Venezuela's institional rules of the game are flawed, but then you don't actually propose how you think the rules should be changed. You tell us neither what kind of regulatory oversight of broadcasting would be appropriate nor how such a regulatory body should be chosen.
What I said next was that to suggest that Venezuela's institional rules of the game are flawed was "quite different than saying that RCTV has the right to call for the extra-constitutional overthrow of Venezuela's government."
Everything that you've written shows that you haven't actually contested one major point that I've made. Unfortunately, you don't have the courage to acknowledge that YOUR points flatly contradict Boz's suggestion that RCTV has some God-given right to its broadcast license, regardless of its actions.
If your posts had been motivated by what I'd actually written rather than what you think of me personally, you might have actually been able to rationally engage and maybe even --heaven forbid-- recognize a few points of agreement.
Unfortunately, since your reading comprehension goes straight to hell whenever you try to debate me and since you're not really capable of making arguments of your own, you try to pull rank and respond with non-arguments like this:
Another question remains: who has more credibility on the issue, Justin or Human Rights Watch. I'll go with HRW in this case.
Never mind that, by that point, you hadn't even succeeded in contesting one measly point that I'd made.
Frankly, Randy, I don't give a flying fuck if you think I'm the biggest asshole you've ever debated. That's no excuse for your feverish little fits and basic incomprehension of the words in front of your face.
Learn to debate, old man.
Boz's suggestion that RCTV has some God-given right to its broadcast license, regardless of its actions.
Actually, I simply believe that no media station should be stripped of its right to broadcast based on its political views. What Chavez is doing is censorship based on RCTV's political views. The flawed institutional rules are simply cover for the political censorship imposed by the president.
Governments do have a basic right to regulate the broadcast spectrum, but that's more due to the need to solve the collective action problem created by conflicting signals, not to regulate content based on the political whims of the president.
La Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa came out earlier today, condemning Chavez for his decision to no renovar la licencia de RCTV.
This evening, local tv here (Quito), which is reporting live from RCTV, reports that Chavez has threatened any/all radio/tv stations with 72 hour closures if they retransmit the SIP statement.
Censorship, pure and simple, and fortunately, most of the world (I see now that Le Monde has come out with strong condemnation of the RCTV travesty), sees Chavez's acts for what they are and qualifies them as such.
None of these statements will stop Chavez, of course. He will only seek to further consolidate power, and in the process, silence anyone/anyone who opposes him.
The sad irony is that it's the U.S. that finances most of this, buying Chavez's oil while belying its own professed principles of democracy, free speech, free press, etc. Apparently those ideas get checked at the entrance to the gas station.....
"This evening, local tv here (Quito), which is reporting live from RCTV, reports that Chavez has threatened any/all radio/tv stations with 72 hour closures if they retransmit the SIP statement."
Oh really, Tambopaxi? Well, I'd like to see the actual evidence that Chavez has made such a threat. If your "local tv" in Quito is anything like Venezuelan private media, it's probably not very trustworthy.
Well, gee, Tambopaxi, it appears that even Telesur --which is half-owned by the Venezuelan government-- is reporting about the statement of La Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa. Don't you find it a bit odd that the Venezuelan government would be prohibiting transmission of SIP's statement when Telesur is reporting on SIP's statement?
Food for thought, big fella.
The statement about the 72 hour closures was made by MarÃa Alejandra DÃaz, a representative of the Ministry of Communications. She said that SIP's statement is illegal because it calls the government "authoritarian" and any media outlet transmitting that message could be shut down.
The link to the Telesur article wasn't a report on the SIP statement itself, but rather Diaz's response to the statement (although it left out threat of closing down other media outlets).
I'm sure the Chavez government won't shut down Telesur, even if they bent the rules. Not always following the rules is one of the benefits of being authoritarian.
Thanks for corroborating the info on the SIP shutdown threat, Boz. I'd say that such a threat is in keeping with the bullying tactics of the Chavez government.
News of the SIP threat from the Chavez government was repeated again this morning.
It'd be interesting to see if any media outlet besides TeleSur (which committed a SIP slip?) have mentioned the SIP condemnation. I'd guess not, but who knows? Maybe there's still some brave (or foolish) soul down there who's willing to ignore such a threat in the interests of complete reporting.
Finally, if in fact some other Venezuelan media come out with news of the SIP statement (and were not shut down), I'd be delighted; the ability to speak out against Chaveza is what matters most. I'm sure Justin will keep us posted if this happens...
You know as well as I, Randy, that if a U.S. television station were to favorably broadcast statements by military officials calling for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the United States' government, legal sanctions would follow. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
Justin, I said that they could and it is most certainly not a definite. I know the law and procedure. You, obviously, do not.
Frankly, Randy, I don't give a flying fuck if you think I'm the biggest asshole you've ever debated. That's no excuse for your feverish little fits and basic incomprehension of the words in front of your face.
I'm not the one throwing fits and insults here, Justin, you are. I'm not the one throwing words like "fatwa" around either. FYI, I'm Roman Catholic.
The procedure is what I object to Justin. As I proved, a convicted pedophile had more rights in this country than the owners of RCTV - who have been convicted of nothing - have in Venezuela.
As for your general bile-spewing, I do not think I could really care less.
"The statement about the 72 hour closures was made by MarÃa Alejandra DÃaz, a representative of the Ministry of Communications."
Show me the link, Boz. I know better than to take your word for it.
Actually, Telesur did report on SIP's statement. Read the entire report. They even quoted SIP's spokesperson.
"Justin, I said that they could and it is most certainly not a definite."
Well, now you're just lying, Randy. That doesn't surprise me, though.
If a television station owner met with a leader of a military coup to coordinate the extra-constitutional overthrow of the U.S. government (which is exactly what RCTV's Marcel Granier did), he wouldn't just have his station shut down. He would be incarcerated for life.
Wake the fuck up, Randy.
In fact, under U.S. law, RCTV's Granier may very well have been subject to capital punishment. He ought to be thanking his lucky stars that big bad Hugo is much much more lenient.
Show me the link, Boz.
Here's one of many links. AP and others have also reported it, so don't bother trying to discredit the source as you would usually respond.
I know it hasn't been reported on Counterpunch or FAIR yet (which is probably why you don't know about it), but fortunately other media sources continue to report on censorship threats in Venezuela.
Thanks for the link, Boz. My blog postings are proof that I actually read a much greater variety of sources than you, but I hadn't gotten to the AP wire yet today. Now, as I perform a news google search on MarÃa Alejandra DÃaz, I find nothing from AP about her statement. I did find a report on her statements from the New York Times, though.
I disagree with DÃaz's statement. The standard she seems to be attempting to lay out here is excessively arbitrary. My guess is that there will be criticisms of her statement from within the Chavez government.
Needless to say, the arbitrariness of Diaz's statement has no bearing on the propriety of the denial of RCTV's license renewal, which is completely justified on internationally recognized grounds that seditious speech is not legally protected speech. That's as true in the United States as it is in Venezuela.
It'd be interesting to see if any media outlet besides TeleSur (which committed a SIP slip?) have mentioned the SIP condemnation. I'd guess not, but who knows?
Well, you guessed wrong, Tambopaxi. Globovisión and El Universal reported on it. So did Venevisión and El Nacional. In other words, all the major media outlets in Venezuela have reported on it.
So much for the "muzzled" Venezuelan media.
I'm glad that some of the media have reported the SIP statement. I haven't checked, but I hope they all quote Diaz's threat. That would just help make it clearer to all what kind of a government Venezuela has and what it would like to do - muzzle all the opposition media.
Still, if there's a flicker of courage in the oppo, so much the better. The less of a lapdog press, the less the chances that Chavez will stay in power for life, as his mentor in Cuba has done.
One could argue that Venezuela has gotten what it deserves in the person of Chavez. Its violent and dreary history has produced despots like Chavez in the past and it looks like Venezuela has chosen to go this route again.
Oil money has will give Venezuela a veneer of prosperity as long a good prices last. However long those prices last, defenders of Chavez will continue to tout that prosperity as proof of the virtues and solidity of 21st century Bolivarian socialism.
The Chavez government is neither virtuous nor solid.
The economic solidity depends on cash flows from capitalist economies which are used to meet the clientalistic demands of Chavez's political base. That base has been lucky because Chavez hasn't had to be too repressive (aside from taking a few political prisoners and closing or intimidating the media) in his approach to power because he's bought a broad, empoverished constituency which is managed by a civilian and military power structure loyal to Chavez.
The power structure was built on ideas at the beginning, I think, but now, more and more, it is based on deepening and widening financial corruption. An even greater threat to solidity is that fact that the whole system Chavez is constructing is based on socio-economic concepts/philosophies literally went bankrupt some years ago. The entire approach is sustainable, ironically, as I say, only as long as capitalist economies support it.
Finally, the virtue thing: One might argue that more health posts, subsidized food outlets and schools are virtues, but it's all based on the you're-with-me-or-agin-me tactics of bullying, intimidation, duplicity, and an unquenchable thirst for more power, over more years.
Venezuela and Latin America don't need monarchies, constitutional or otherwise. Whether wrapped in the marketing cloaks of 21st century socialism or (pick some slogan of the Castro regime), Cuba is an impoverished monarchy, and Venezuela is headed toward that same fate. Castro is still the (elected; how hollow that term seems) paramount dictator in his country and Chavez wants to be the very same thing in his country.
Poor Venezuela; things are only going to get worse.....
Justin,
Here's what I wrote before:
just to clarify, Justin, I didn't make the point that RCTV would be subject to legal sanction, I mentioned that they could be and it would entail an extensive, formal complaint process that I might add, rarely succeeds.
No lie there.
For the record here in the US, as I mentioned and as you, true to form ignored, the one example I ponied up was someone who had been convicted of a felony. If the management of RCTV were convicted of a felony or felonies, it might make for a much convincing case against the renewal of the license.
One wonders, hoewever, if the management of RCTV was so heavily involved in support for the coup, why have they neither been arrested, nor indicted, nor tried for anything with regard to the 2002 coup.
You have been sucking at the Chávez teat for too long to be taken seriously, Justin.
(In response to Tambopaxi)
Ah, yes, Venezuela is a "monarchy." A "monarchy" whose leader puts his own presidency to test by not only allowing free elections but also allowing his opposition to attempt to recall him by popular referendum.
That's an awfully strange sort of "monarchy," with an even more odd sort of "king."
You have been sucking at the Chávez teat for too long to be taken seriously, Justin.
Oh really, Randy? Care to "pony up" with evidence of me "sucking at the Chávez teat for too long to be taken seriously." Give us the goods, smart guy.
One wonders, however, if the management of RCTV was so heavily involved in support for the coup, why have they neither been arrested, nor indicted, nor tried for anything with regard to the 2002 coup.
Did you even bother to read the FAIR article, or would that just generate too much cognitive dissonance for you? How 'bout the article by Patrick McElwee?
Even the anti-Chavez correspondent Phil Gunson has corroborated that, in the midst of the coup, Marcel Granier (the owner of RCTV), Gustavo Cisneros (the owner of Venevisión), Alberto Ravell (the president of Globovisión) and Miguel Otero (the publisher of El Nacional) met with coup leader Pedro Carmona, who, according to palace guards, told the media magnates: "In your hands lie the safety and stability of the government." The private channels then proceeded to keep Venezuelans "in the dark" about massive protests against the coup, instead running "cartoons, reruns and Pretty Woman."
Mind you that the media magnates' compliance with Carmona's requests came immediately after Carmona had annulled the country's democratically-ratified constitution and disbanded Venezuela's congress and supreme court. The irony of Boz's defense of RCTV is that the people he defends on "free speech" grounds colluded in a process that was clearly designed to stifle democratic liberties.
The reason that the Chavez government hasn't put its foot down until now is that it knows darn well that there's a huge mafia of so-called "NGOs" --many of which are funded by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy and heavily influenced by international media owners-- who will scream to high heaven in defense of coup-plotting media tycoons. Boz is just another little pawn in their game.
Regardless, it's beyond clear that Granier had this one coming.
My blog postings are proof that I actually read a much greater variety of sources than you
Your blog postings show a lot of things about you, but not that.
...I find nothing from AP about her statement
Try searching in Spanish.
Even the anti-Chavez correspondent Phil Gunson has corroborated that, in the midst of the coup, Marcel Granier (the owner of RCTV), Gustavo Cisneros (the owner of Venevisión), Alberto Ravell (the president of Globovisión) and Miguel Otero (the publisher of El Nacional) met with coup leader Pedro Carmona, who, according to palace guards, told the media magnates: "In your hands lie the safety and stability of the government." The private channels then proceeded to keep Venezuelans "in the dark" about massive protests against the coup, instead running "cartoons, reruns and Pretty Woman."
Then bring charges against them in a court of law.
Oh really, Randy? Care to "pony up" with evidence of me "sucking at the Chávez teat for too long to be taken seriously." Give us the goods, smart guy.
Sure touched a nerve there, Justin. It's called a metaphor. One would think a PhD candidate would know what a metaphor is.
I don't know if you are literally sucking at the Chavez teat or any other appendage of his for that matter.
Your slavish, uncritical devotion coupled with your acknowledgments in a previous post do make you less than crdible.
Then bring charges against them in a court of law.
So that all these NED-funded "NGOs" and international media magnates can scream even louder about so-called "censorship" in Venezuela? The Venezuelan government is a lot smarter than you, Randy. Sorry to break that to you.
So that all these NED-funded "NGOs" and international media magnates can scream even louder about so-called "censorship" in Venezuela?
So your most recent excuse for censorship in Venezuela is that the Chavez government is afraid of some strongly worded statement from NGO's and the international media.
Do you honestly believe that fear of criticism is a valid excuse to ignore due process?
Do you honestly believe that fear of criticism is a valid excuse to ignore due process?
Well, now you're just not making any sense, Boz. First you scream to high heaven about the completely legal process --put in place in 1987-- by which the Chavez government denied renewal of RCTV's broadcast license.
Now you complain that Venezuelan government prosecutors didn't try the country's major media magnates for sedition in a court of law. Yeah, that makes oodles of sense, Boz.
Imagine the field day you and your ilk would have if the Chavez government were to not only deny renewal of Granier's broadcast license but also to try him, Gustavo Cisneros, Miguel Otero and Alberto Ravell for sedition!
Let's not joke around, Boz.
Imagine the field day you and your ilk would have if the Chavez government were to not only deny renewal of Granier's broadcast license but also to try him, Gustavo Cisneros, Miguel Otero and Alberto Ravell for sedition!
So you're saying that Chavez is afraid to try people he considers "coup-plotters" because he's scared of people like me criticizing it? That's a lot of influence you think I have.
Still, your comment doesn't answer the question I asked: Do you honestly believe that fear of criticism is a valid excuse to ignore due process?
Do you honestly believe that fear of criticism is a valid excuse to ignore due process?
Only if the state were to decide to prosecute the media tycoons for sedition would the question of due process become relevant. Since the state didn't prosecute them for sedition, the question has no relevance.
Naturally, if the state had tried the media tycoons for sedition, due process would have been in order. In that case, international pressures on the state would have had the effect of reinforcing due process, not removing due process.
So that all these NED-funded "NGOs" and international media magnates can scream even louder about so-called "censorship" in Venezuela? The Venezuelan government is a lot smarter than you, Randy. Sorry to break that to you.
Poppycock. As Boz notes, this is truly among the lamest of your defenses.
Amazing that you have so littel faith in the judicial process in Venezuela.
I wish I'd come here sooner, rather than waste my time individually battling Justin on another blog. Thanks, Randi, tambopaxi, Boz, et al. You did a better job countering Justin than I did. I'm amazed at his rather brash mannerisms and unwillingness to ever concede a single point in a discussion.
Yes, the extent of Randy's debating skills is to declare "poppycock" when he knows he couldn't formulate a coherent argument to save his life.
Keep trying, Randy. Keep trying.
So you're saying that Chavez is afraid to try people he considers "coup-plotters" because he's scared of people like me criticizing it? That's a lot of influence you think I have.
Let me try to spell it out for you and Randy, Boz. You two are a little dense, so sometimes it's necessary to spell things out for you.
When I say "you and your ilk," what I'm obviously referring to is all the lobbyists, so-called "NGOs" and corporate media who are screaming to high heaven about the Venezuelan government's denial of renewal of RCTV's broadcast license. All you have to do is turn on Univision to see what I'm talking about.
No, Randy and Boz; I'm not talking about you two individually and your piddly little blogs. I'm talking about the whole vast mafia of media moguls, corporate-funded lobbyists, and NED-funded "NGOs" to which you two have hitched your trains.
Yes, the Chavez government does have to concern itself with how this vast mafia --including all major corporate media-- will completely distort its actions. Yes, the Chavez government would have to take such a factor into consideration in deciding whether or not to try coup-plotting media magnates for sedition.
Debating you two is like debating a couple kindergarteners.
Yes, the Chavez government does have to concern itself with how this vast mafia --including all major corporate media-- will completely distort its actions. Yes, the Chavez government would have to take such a factor into consideration in deciding whether or not to try coup-plotting media magnates for sedition.
So instead of concerning himself with what's right and wrong, you're arguing that Chavez needs to make decisions based on how it will affect his image among this vast global media and NGO conspiracy that you claim exists.
That's a pretty weak standard to lead a revolution, don't you think?
Are you an idiot, Boz, or do you just play one on your blog?
When someone decides that attacking people w/ phrases like "Debating you two is like debating a couple kindergarteners" and other abrasive language is the best tactic for an argument, then it's clear that we're not really having a conversation. We're just being shouted at by someone who *insists* on imposing a hegemonic discourse. Frankly, why bother anymore? Let him have his "victory" and move on.
Here's why this is pointless:
"Organization and funding of "delegations of observers" that visit Venezuela to get familiar with the domestic situation is another salient activity in the office [VIO, Venezuelan Information Office]. This is why US Justin Delacour purported to visit Venezuela during the recall referendum. Delacour is named as a "political analyst" in the dossier submitted by the Ministry of Communication and Information, where the US media are charged with subjectivity and negligence. Delacour calls himself a militant and follower of Hugo Chávez. He has even declared: "I will remain with Chávez for better or worse, and I think that any progressive thinker would do the same if he knew what is at stake." VIO uses as an example for its readers a letter to the editor published in The Washington Post in October 27, 2004, and initialed by Justin Delacour, in reply to a reportedly negative editorial about Venezuela. The letter shows how to write pro-Chávez replies and, thus, influence media coverage of the Bolivarian rule."
Source: http://www.eluniversal.com/2005/03/26/en_pol_art_26A545233.shtml
Isn't Google fun?
The URL got caught off, this link should work.
Uh, Miguel, you really don't want to go there. El Universal's piece was borderline libelous, and they know it. In fact, their editors were so embarrassed by their reporters' poor quality of research that they published my response.
When someone decides that attacking people w/ phrases like "Debating you two is like debating a couple kindergarteners" and other abrasive language is the best tactic for an argument, then it's clear that we're not really having a conversation.
Obviously you haven't read the entire thread, Miguel. If you had, you wouldn't be so selective about whose phrases are insulting. In fact, nowadays, Randy inserts an insult into virtually everything he writes to me. I'm actually glad he does that; it puts his desperation on display.
Uh, Miguel, you really don't want to go there.
Actually Miguel, feel free to go there. Justin admits in a previous thread he was paid by the Venezuelan government. He'll complain about the details of the arrangement, but what you said fits pretty well.
In terms of Justin's arguments, once he's been beat, he tries to change the subject or make the argument more personal. It's just a sign that he lost the argument but doesn't want to admit it. It's a good time to remind him that he's making excuses for an authoritarian leader who is censoring the political opposition.
Justin, would you care to give any additional excuses for why you think it's valid that a president like Chavez shuts down the opposition media, or have you run out of excuses and just want to continue the insults?
Actually Miguel, feel free to go there. Justin admits in a previous thread he was paid by the Venezuelan government. He'll complain about the details of the arrangement, but what you said fits pretty well.
Uh, actually, it doesn't fit at all (and you're not one to talk, since you're a real government-paid lobbyist). The one-month period during which I performed meagerly-paid research for the Venezuelan government --to the tune of a whopping $700-- was AFTER El Universal had suggested that I had worked for the Venezuelan government. The El Universal article was published in April 2005. I did the research for the the Ministry of Information and Communication from July 15 to August 15, 2005.
In other words, El Universal was engaging in borderline libel, and their editors knew it. That's why they published my response. (I was even encouraged to sue El Universal for libel, but I felt their publication of my response sufficed.)
Justin, would you care to give any additional excuses for why you think it's valid that a president like Chavez shuts down the opposition media, or have you run out of excuses and just want to continue the insults?
As you well know, Boz, the Chavez government's "excuses" for denying the renewal of a broadcast license to coup-plotting RCTV owner Marcel Granier are the same "excuses" that the FCC and U.S. law uses in prohibiting sedition.
Are you now going to start a campaign --in the name of "free speech"-- to remove U.S. laws on sedition and FCC rules against seditious speech? Or will it soon occur to you that such a campaign --unlike your little fatwa against bid bad Hugo-- doesn't pay the bills?
I'll believe this was entirely about "sedition" when Chavez's government actually decides to indict any of those involved. It shouldn't be hard, he controls most of the legal system (so he's very likely to get a favorable verdict, eh?).
No one is denying that RCTV was critical of Chavez or that it supported the coup. But why shut down an entire station? One can also wonder about the employment of all the workers at the station ... are they being replaced? Will they get to keep their jobs? If this was aimed at the station's management, it seems odd to engage in collective punishment.
But, Boz, I'm glad to see you exchanging ideas w/ Randy. I know you're not always on the same side of the fence. But at least both of you have treated each other (and others) w/ respect, dignity, and humility. There may be hope for civil discourse, yet! ;-)
As you well know, Boz, the Chavez government's "excuses" for denying the renewal of a broadcast license to coup-plotting RCTV owner Marcel Granier are the same "excuses" that the FCC and U.S. law uses in prohibiting sedition.
Actually, rather than pointing at some hypothetical FCC case that doesn't exist, people should read Greg Weeks' post where in the comments we compare to the very real case of Fujimori/Montesinos shutting down opposition media outlets in Peru. It's the much more valid comparison.
I'll answer your other question by quoting the same answer I gave above:
For the record, if the FCC tried to shut down a US TV station based on political speech including the examples you gave, I'd be very opposed. I hope to never see that level of censorship in my country.
I'd strongly oppose the FCC censorship if and when that day came along. I'm opposing Chavez's censorship today.
Firstly, Boz, the fact that there are U.S. laws and FCC rules against libel and seditious speech already dissuades U.S. broadcasters from engaging in such speech. By your (rather absurd) definition, such rules and laws are themselves a form of "censorship."
Moreover, we can readily point to cases in which legal threats have been made against U.S. news corporations to stop them from engaging in forms of speech that are deemed to be in contravention of U.S. political norms. Let's take the Sinclair case, for example. Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates the largest number of local TV stations in the United States, planned to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry immediately prior to the 2004 election. McElwee describes the Democrats' response:
"The Democratic National Committee filed a case with the FCC arguing that such 'partisan propaganda' was inappropriate. And, yes, at least one powerful Democratic politician swore that if the documentary was aired, there would be no Sinclair Broadcast Group by the 2008 election."
The political and economic pressures applied by the Democrats on Sinclair led them to cancel the anti-Kerry broadcast.
So let's stop and think about that for a second. If a major U.S. political party can manage to stop a major broadcaster from airing certain kinds of 'partisan proganda' in the immediate lead-up to a U.S. presidential election, then you can bet your ass that the party of the president would throw the book at any broadcaster that were to ever call for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the U.S. president. Moreover, the very existence of rules and laws prohibiting such forms of speech is enough to dissuade any U.S. broadcaster from engaging in such activity.
Now, is Boz screaming to high heaven about how Sinclair was pressured to abandon its plan to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry immediately prior to the 2004 election? Oh no. Is Boz screaming to high heaven about the fact that U.S. laws and FCC rules dissuade U.S. broadcasters from engaging in libel or seditious speech? Oh no.
But if the Chavez government denies a broadcast license to a station that plainly engaged in sedition, suddenly "free speech" is in peril.
Give me a break, Boz. You are obviously in PR mode, not in reality mode.
The argument that what is "legal" is automatically "right" is an interesting one. Nearly all of Hitler's acts in Germany were "legal" under statutes his government wrote. And if you want to make a less fancifull comparison, then the Patriot Act is "legal" just as the Iraq war is "legal" in the sense of following proscribed statutes past by the government.
And since Bush won a majority of the popular vote (as John Bolton so eloquently reminded us), then I suppose he does have the right to dismiss any attorneys or other bureaucrats who don't toe the line (according to John Bolton's concept of "democratic theory" this is necessary).
According to that logic as well, then the government should round up and jail members of Code Pink, ANSWER, and other organizations that have actively called for impeachment of Bush. Some have even called for his assassination or removal by force. Similarly, one could make the argument that some (like Cindy Sheehan) have given "aid & comfort" to the "enemy" (which falls under the statutes of "sedition").
So I guess if Chavez has the right to interpret "democracy" that way, then we should cease our criticisms of Bush, too. Or did I miss something? I've always found the line of reasoning that people who win elections are therefore empowered to do as they see fit an amusing one. Especially since people tend to support it only so long as their ideologues win elections. The beauty of liberal-pluralist democratic institutions is that they'd meet the criteria of John Rawls's "veil of ignorance" (the kind of insitutional arrangement we'd prefere if we didn't know where we'd end up).
According to that logic as well, then the government should round up and jail members of Code Pink, ANSWER, and other organizations that have actively called for impeachment of Bush.
You're missing something here, Miguel. Under the American constitution, impeachment involves a legal, institutionalized political process. To call for impeachment is clearly not sedition.
To back an extra-constitutional coup is entirely distinct from supporting a legal, institutionalized political process of impeachment. I'm surprised that you have difficulty understanding the distinction.
Some have even called for his assassination or removal by force.
And those people are legally subject to prosecution. Naturally, it's up to the state to decide whether the threat is suffient enough to merit prosecution, but you and I know that if you start talking about harming the president in this country, the FBI will be on you like fly on shit. The U.S. Smith Act makes punishable the advocacy of "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence." According to the Supreme Court's most recent rulings on the matter, speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act.
Nobody argues that prohibitions of seditious speech make the U.S. political system an "authoritarian" political system.
Similarly, one could make the argument that some (like Cindy Sheehan) have given "aid & comfort" to the "enemy" (which falls under the statutes of "sedition").
No, actually, that doesn't fall under the statutes of "sedition." No U.S. court would recognize Sheehan's statements as sedition. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the matter clarifies that, for speech to be seditious, it must explicitly incite the forcible overthrow of the government. RCTV has done just that in Venezuela.
So I guess if Chavez has the right to interpret "democracy" that way, then we should cease our criticisms of Bush, too.
Totally absurd argument. Criticism is not sedition. Calling for impeachment is not sedition.
But calling for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the government, yes, that falls under the statutes of sedition. It's pretty elementary, really.
Or did I miss something?
Yes, you missed quite a lot.
I've always found the line of reasoning that people who win elections are therefore empowered to do as they see fit an amusing one.
No, what I said is that democratic states have the right to prosecute sedition. If they didn't have that right, then all manner of anti-democratic coup-plotting would flourish with impunity.
Pretty elementary principle, I think.
I like the part where the core of my argument: that was is "legal" is not necessarily "right" was completely ignored.
A bit of advice, btw. If you want to engage in an argument puresly as a provocateur, that's fine. But if you want to convince people to your argument, it's best to not be consistently abrassive and call your opponents stupid or treat them w/ such condescension. People will be more willing to concede to your counter arguments if you approach people w/ respect.
Also, I wonder whether the principles of falsifiability come into play. I like to ask myself (and my students): What specific evidence would you be willing to accept, that if true, would change your mind and convince you that your previous position was incorrect? If you can't think of any, then you don't have a reasoned argument, you have dogma.
As for the idea of sedition in a broader sense in the US. I've seen (we all have) pundits and even elected officials call for the prosecution of anti-war activists (and others) for sedition. Interestingly, the laws on sedition in the US have been largely repealed or unused since hte 1960s (which is good). I've been to protests where speakers have advocated overthrowing the government, not recognizing the government (e.g. saying "Gore is the legitimate president"), etc. These have been defended as "free speech" -- and let's hope it still is protected!
My example was meant for serious consideration. Would we accept our current government defining what is "socially responsible" journalism or media activity? If not, why not? And if we're not willing to accept it in our case, why are we willing to accept it in the case of Venezuela?
Again, let's return to my central argument: Is what is "legal" (as passed by any government in the world) the equivalent of what is "right" (in an ethical or moral sense)?
No doubt the American state often overlooks borderline seditious speech (as does the Chavez government). Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the American state would take legal action if a major broadcaster were to engage in seditious speech. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
You need to apply the standards of falsifiability and consistency to your own arguments.
If you're gonna argue that a popularly-elected government is authoritarian on account of it taking legal action against a seditious broadcaster, then the argument logically applies to any and all governments that have laws against seditious broadcasting. The argument cannot just apply to a government that encounters a seditious broadcaster and ultimately takes legal action against it.
Conversely, if you're gonna argue that one government that would take legal action against a seditious broadcaster is not authoritarian, then logically such legal action by another government cannot constitute the basis of an argument that the other government is authoritarian.
There are only two possible theoretical routes you can take here. Either all popularly-elected governments that would take legal action against seditious broadcasters are authoritarian, or no popularly-elected government can be categorized as authoritarian on account of it taking legal action against a seditious broadcaster.
My view is that no popularly-elected government can be categorized as authoritarian on account of it taking legal action against a seditious broadcaster. What's your view?
My example was meant for serious consideration. Would we accept our current government defining what is "socially responsible" journalism or media activity?
We already do, Miguel. We have libel law, forbidding media to libel people. We have the Smith Act, forbidding seditious speech. We have laws against slander. Public broadcasters cannot air profanity. We even have the case of Sinclair Broadcast Corp, which was pressured --under the threat of suit-- to abandon its plan to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry immediately prior to the 2004 election.
The West Europeans have even more social regulation of media. In France, media can't print or air opinion polls in the lead-up to elections. The Norwegians have rules on how much air time different political actors must be apportioned in the lead-up to elections. No advanced democracy permits seditious speech by broadcasters. That's absolutely unheard of in advanced democracies.
In fact, the Venezuelans' system of social regulation of media is largely modeled after media regulation in the rich countries.
With regard to media, Venezuela is clearly operating in accordance with international norms.
Again, you need to apply the standards of falsifiability and consistency to your own arguments. My arguments are perfectly consistent on the matter.
We have the Smith Act, forbidding seditious speech.
Actually, Justin, I'm glad you brought up the Smith Act. Along with the Fujimori example we discussed on Greg Weeks' blog, the US prosecutions during the 1940's and 50's under the Smith Act are a fair comparison to Chavez's recent censorship of RCTV.
And as I wrote there: Justice Black wrote in 1951 that the government's indictments under the act were a "virulent form of prior censorship of speech and press". I agree with him.
I would oppose the Smith Act being used today (it hasn't been used since the 50's) and it should be taken off the books in the US. I also oppose Chavez censoring his opposition media for the same reasons.
Once again, I defend free speech; you make excuses for censorship. I think we've defined our opposing political views on this fairly well.
Justice Black's position was not against the Smith Act but rather against the standing court's interpretation of the Smith Act. In the midst of the McCarthyite period, the Smith Act was interpreted to mean that the mere study and teaching of certain anti-capitalist ideologies could be interpreted as sedition. Later, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Smith Act to mean that only explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government was in violation of the law. That ruling still stands, and none of you have managed to establish that it wouldn't be employed against broadcasters who engaged in seditious speech.
In other words, by your definition, we already have "censorship" of seditious speech in the United States. If a law exists on the books to prosecute seditious speech, you can bet your ass that broadcasters aren't going to engage in seditious speech. Does that make the United States government an "authoritarian" government? Please do tell.
And if you two really believe in the right to be seditious, why aren't you making a big stink about U.S. prohibitions on seditious speech?
Boz, when are you gonna start a campaign to legalize seditious broadcasting in America? Please do tell.
Justin Delacour believes the Smith Act is a legitimate government policy against sedition.
I think the Smith Act is a violation of free speech and should be removed from our legal system.
However, the difference is the Smith Act hasn't been enforced since the 1950's while Venezuela is shutting down opposition media outlets today. That's why I pay attention to one and not the other.
Your attempt to deflect criticism of current Venezuela's censorship by pointing to an antiquated US law is laughable and also fits into the main post's point about Chavez's defenders making excuses for censorship.
Also, as I like to point out, these comments fit the usual pattern. I defend free speech and democracy; you make excuses for censorship and authoritarianism. That's really been the running theme for our past four or five comment threads.
Boz, it's pretty simple. Unless you can establish that existing U.S. legal statutes on sedition would not be employed against a major broadcaster that colluded in a coup plot in the United States, you have no basis for claiming that the RCTV case is exceptional.
I defend free speech and democracy
Uh, actually, no, if you defended democracy, you wouldn't be attempting to shield Marcel Granier from legal punishment for his collusion with coup leaders who not only kidnapped the country's democratically-elected president and annulled its democratically-ratified constitution but also disbanded the its Supreme Court and National Assembly. Your position is clearly not a pro-democratic one.
Justin,
I'm talking about real censorship that is occurring right now in Venezuela. The government of Hugo Chavez shut down a major TV station supportive of the political opposition. You're attempting to deflect the issue by creating a hypothetical and implausible US case based on a law that hasn't been used in over 50 years.
I opposed the coup in 2002. I don't defend the actions that occurred then. I've taken a consistent pro-democracy position.
I support democracy and free speech; you defend authoritarianism and censorship. As many excuses as you try to make, that's the message people will take away from from reading these threads.
My view is that no popularly-elected government can be categorized as authoritarian on account of it taking legal action against a seditious broadcaster. What's your view?
I think you nailed. I don't think ANY government, even a popularly elected one, has the right to repress ANY kind of speech. Period. I don't believe democracy means three wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
And my earlier point still stands. Are we willing accept ANY law as moral or ethical merely because it's the law? Or merely because a majority supports it? If so, then slavery and segregation were once moral/ethical, since it was legal and significant (even if only regional) majorities supported it in the US. I don't think slavery was EVER moral/ethical, regardless of its "legality" and regardness of public opinion.
Justin, it seems clear that you are arguing that ANY government that passes laws using some sort of democratic procedure (whether the US or Venezuela) is given carte blanche to enforce ANY legal statutes it puts forward. Boz, myself, and others have made it perfectly clear that we don't hold that view.
Finally, let's get this straight: If Granier is guilty of what the government claims, then it should process him through the legal system on charges related to that crime. So far, in the five years since the 2002 coup, the Venezuelan government has done nothing of the sort. What Boz, myself, and others keep coming back to is the way in which the decision was made, which was clearly meant to impose collective punishment on the media in general.
But I want a direct answer to my direct question: Is ANY government allowed to impose ANY law simply because its leaders were elected by some democratic process?
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despite, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky
Ah, yes, Boz, you say you opposed the coup, but then you turn around and claim that major broadcasters have a "right" to plot coups.
If you oppose anti-democratic coups, then you have to support the state's right to take legal action against coup plotters. Otherwise, you don't really oppose anti-democratic coups.
Are we willing accept ANY law as moral or ethical merely because it's the law?
Of course not. We assess the merits of the law and its application in determining whether we think it is justified in practice.
Your question has no relevance to any position I've taken in this debate, actually.
Justin, it seems clear that you are arguing that ANY government that passes laws using some sort of democratic procedure (whether the US or Venezuela) is given carte blanche to enforce ANY legal statutes it puts forward.
That's completely absurd, Miguel. I think you have a reading comprehension problem. My position has been clear all along. No, a popularly-elected government doesn't have the right to pass any old law it pleases. However, the state does have the right to take legal action against coup-plotting and against broadcasted calls for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the government.
The point is quite specific, actually. There is nothing "carte blanche" about it.
What Boz, myself, and others keep coming back to is the way in which the decision was made...
Actually, you're wrong. Go back and read Boz's original post. His position is not one of legal procedure. His position is that, regardless of the law, RCTV has a right to renewal of its broadcast license, regardless of its actions. That's been his position all along.
You two believe in impunity for coup-plotting. I don't.
You two believe in impunity for coup-plotting. I don't.
That statement seems to contradict my explicit claim that the managers of RCTV should be legally prosecuted for sedition through legal channels (something that hasn't been done in the five years since the 2002 coup). Now who has reading comprehension issues?
You have also argued that if any station in the use did what RCTV did, the US government would have the legitimate right to shut it down. Boz clearly stated that he would oppose such a US govt action. Again, reading comprehension?
FInally, I'd like to actually know what RCTV did that constitutes plotting a coup. So far, I've only heard allegations. Did RCTV support the coup? Probably. No doubts there. Did they go on the air & explicitly say "my fellow Venezuelans, let's overthrow this govt?" Because it seems that their 'backing a coup" was often seen because of their coverage of the coup and non-coverage of Chavez's return to power. From where I sit, that's media bias (like FOX anti-liberal bias, or CBS anti-Bush bias, etc). I'll certainly concede that it goes further than FOX/CBS examples. But I've never seen evidence that RCTV actively "called for" a coup. And that's a huge difference.
But. Again. I would encourage the Chavez government to: a) prosecute RCTV managers for sedition in the proper courts; and b) go through a due process to revoke RCTV's charter, rather than a person decision by the president.
Notice that I'm not supporting coups. Let me restate that, yet again: If the RCTV management supported a coup, it should face legal punishment for sedition. But that should not extend to shutting down one of the few voices left critical of a government in order to confiscate its property to create yet another propaganda channel.
Post a Comment