Chavez to close critical media outlet, ammend constitution

[Xiahou]

I know everybody loves ol' Hugo, so when I came across this story I thought I'd share it:

``Pack your bags and turn off the lights,'' Chavez said during a televised speech to soldiers in Caracas. ``There won't be a new concession for a coup-mongering television station called RCTV.''

RCTV would be the first private television station shut down by Chavez. The president, who won a second six-year term in a Dec. 3 vote, in June threatened to shut private television stations that criticize the government and broadcast ``messages of hate.''

``Chavez is looking to keep the opposition quiet, to threaten his enemies,'' said Luis Vicente Leon, director of polling company Datanalisis in Caracas. ``It will inspire self- censorship in the rest of the media, and where there's self- censorship, there's no free speech.''

Chavez also said he will seek to change the name of the country's military to the Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela, adding the name of 19th century South American liberator Simon Bolivar.

The name change would be part of an overhaul of the constitution next year, Chavez said. The president this month said he will seek to change the constitution to end term limits on presidential re-election.
link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axDixNHtV43w&refer=latin_america)

:no:

[Strike For The South]

Its for the good of the country of course

[Tribesman]

Just wondering .
In your country if there was a media outlet who publicly backed an armed coup against an elected government , a coup BTW that abolished the constitution of that country ......
furthermore a media outlet whose owners were part of the coup .......
a media outlet that is getting foriegn finance for the sole purpose of destabilising the country and bringing down the elected government.......

How long would it be before that outlet was shut down ?
Would they wait for the license to expire do you think ?
Would you be complaining if they did shut it down ?


Though the attempt to end term limits for the office of President is definately not a good thing with all things considered , but in itself term limits do have pros and cons .

[Marshal Murat]

Where are those Russian agents?

I think that Venezuela is a flash in the pan, something akin to Cuba, but farther away. With Hugo Chavez preaching and communizing the country, he can only last so long.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Xiahou, it's OK because it's for the people.

Or so we've been told before. ~:rolleyes:

[Xiahou]

Xiahou, it's OK because it's for the people.
Good point. Pass the kool-aid would you? :beam:

[BigTex]

Considering he's trying to make himself "dictator for life" he isnt much of an elected official anymore, tribesy.

[Tribesman]

Well since some people obviously feel uncomfortable with addressing the question of what would their government do with the media in such a case .....I wonder why :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I shall instead deal with this .



Considering he's trying to make himself "dictator for life" he isnt much of an elected official anymore, tribesy.
Right , so he is elected , elected , retained through recounts and recall votes , but he isn't elected anymore because......errrrrr.....well because he wants to be able to stand for election again :dizzy2:

Once again we see that the vocal "Oooooo look at the nasty tinpot" crowd come up with pretty much nothing to make their case .

Look , it isn't hard to make a damn good case against Chavez , why can you not manage to do it at all ?

[Xiahou]

Well since some people obviously feel uncomfortable with addressing the question of what would their government do with the media in such a case .....I wonder why :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What to do with a media outlet that doesn't tow the party line? Clearly, you shut them down. :rolleyes:

[Tribesman]

What to do with a media outlet that doesn't tow the party line? Clearly, you shut them down.
Aw Xiahou , having trouble reading are we ? Or do you just not like to think ?

Try again .
Just wondering .
In your country if there was a media outlet who publicly backed an armed coup against an elected government , a coup BTW that abolished the constitution of that country ......
furthermore a media outlet whose owners were part of the coup .......
a media outlet that is getting foriegn finance for the sole purpose of destabilising the country and bringing down the elected government.......

How long would it be before that outlet was shut down ?
Would they wait for the license to expire do you think ?
Would you be complaining if they did shut it down ?

So unless of course you think armed rebellion = failure to toe the party line what are you on about :dizzy2:

[doc_bean]

Chavez at least got doctors going to the poor people living in the country who were otherwise to poor to afford medical care. As far as dictators go, he's surprisingly benevolent.

Also, as far as dictators go, he's surprisingly elected.

I don't understand the big problem you Americans have with him, it's not like he's a genuine threat to the US, it's not like like he's sending death squads to silence the opposition, it's not like he's cutting you off of oil (quite the opposite, when he sold you oil against a below market price after Katrina, but then that must have been some evil masterplan too :inquisitive:).

[AntiochusIII]

I don't understand the big problem you Americans have with him, it's not like he's a genuine threat to the US, it's not like like he's sending death squads to silence the opposition, it's not like he's cutting you off of oil (quite the opposite, when he sold you oil against a below market price after Katrina, but then that must have been some evil masterplan too :inquisitive:).From the realpolitik viewpoint alone, Chavez is an excellent figure to replace Castro as the man who stands again the Big Bad America up North for all sorts of anti-Americanism and idealism within the Latin American circles to look up to. Naturally, America wants to discredit him as much as possible. Besides, the media probably need some sound bites from over to the south to keep the audience from being bored all over with Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and Britney Spear's latest affair (Afghanistan missing).

Apart from that, some really do have the ideological conviction that opposes that of his ideology, or his style of leadership, which, while surprisingly benevolent for a dictator, is still more dictatorial than what Americans like.

Now, he's way better than the ******** that America supported in the past (Batista, Pinochet, etc.), but that's another issue.

[BigTex]

Once again we see that the vocal "Oooooo look at the nasty tinpot" crowd come up with pretty much nothing to make their case .


The name change would be part of an overhaul of the constitution next year, Chavez said. The president this month said he will seek to change the constitution to end term limits on presidential re-election.

:captain: :elephant:

As for your question. The KKK, Neo Nazi groups, communist party, Black Panthers, etc. Alot of them seek to overthrow the US government. None of them are imprisoned for speaking about that. Last I checked we also havent ammended the 1st ammendment to ban them either.

I don't understand the big problem you Americans have with him

Probably becuase he's about as anti-american as they come. Not to mention he has speant the better part of the year insulting the USA every second he could. Generally speaking people tend to get "big problems" with people who irrationally hate them and insult them at every turn.

[Adrian II]

Also, as far as dictators go, he's surprisingly elected.And for an elected President, he sticks surprisingly to his program, too.

Closing down a media outlet that calls for a military coup in a volatile situation is only common sense. If anything, it should have been banned earlier. As for the rest of the radio and tv channels, 90% of them are anti-Chavez (one radio station is even dedicated to 24/7 anti-Chavez propaganda) and will give ample attention to the opposition's viewpoints.

Looks like the U.S. will have to swallow some more porcupine in coming years...

[Tribesman]

As for your question.
Aha , a result , thankyou:2thumbsup:

Oh .....:oops: sorry I must have not read what you wrote . I thought for a moment that perhaps you were giving a response to what was written by me .
How silly of me .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
But no worries , I will address what you have written .


As for your question. The KKK, Neo Nazi groups, communist party, Black Panthers, etc. Alot of them seek to overthrow the US government. None of them are imprisoned for speaking about that. Last I checked we also havent ammended the 1st ammendment to ban them either.

OK I shall ignore the first four words as obviously they have no relevance .

Now then , these groups you mention , are any of them national broadcasters acting under a government licensing contract ?
Have any of them broken the license agreement(if they had one:laugh4: ) by supporting an actual armed rebellion ?
Wow , does that mean that section of what you wrote has no relevance at all ?:yes:
As for the imprisonment stuff , lots of them get imprisoned , they have their publications shut down , they have their assets siezed . When they go beyond legality and break your laws .
They have your own democratic secret police following them monitoring what they say , infiltrating them (and if you want rabid gun nut weeklys take on it , also entrapping them to imprison them to shut them up {ala Ruby Ridge}) .
Wow , does that last section of what you wrote also manage to have a severe defecit of relevant material .:whip:

Now then young man , would you like to view some nice stuff from your government on banning those groups you mention , without having to alter the 1st amendment , since the amendment is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to armed rebellion against the government ?:inquisitive:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Edit to add , since such nonsense cannot be left to stand unanswered....

Generally speaking people tend to get "big problems" with people who irrationally hate them and insult them at every turn.

Hmmmmmm...."irrationally hate" . Interesting , very interesting .
So being vocally hostile to someone who has suported and continues to support attempts to undermine and overthrow you , someone who has a pretty big history of doing it to your neighbours and nunerous countries around the world .
Is apperently now irrational , damn I would have thought it was extremely rational .

[Banquo's Ghost]

Chavez also said he will seek to change the name of the country's military to the Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela, adding the name of 19th century South American liberator Simon Bolivar.

That's going to be a teensy bit confusing if they ever have to go to war with Bolivia. :beam:

I must say that the denial of a license to this station is only common sense. Advocacy of armed rebellion against a properly elected government cannot be tolerated in any country.

I am less sanguine about the term limits plan. To me, term limits are the most important element underpinning democracy, and the desire to suspend or abolish them is almost always an indication of totalitarian sympathies. Almost all leaders find it hard to stand down, since they (almost by definition) believe they are the only ones capable of helping the country.

When populist leaders start tinkering with constitutions, especially with term limits, it tends to be the start of slippery slope.

[Sjakihata]

And a slippery slope is a fallacy. Because one does/alters something it does not follow that he will continue to do so.

[Tribesman]

Right , I have had enough of this .
Stop it at once you two .:smash:
I don't want you writing stuff like .....

I must say that the denial of a license to this station is only common sense. Advocacy of armed rebellion against a properly elected government cannot be tolerated in any country.
....or .....
Closing down a media outlet that calls for a military coup in a volatile situation is only common sense. If anything, it should have been banned earlier.

I want the people who are trying to make a big bogeyman issue out of this particular non-issue to actually look at it , and perhaps ...just maybe....give a response to the questions posed in my first post .
But then again , that ain't gonna happen is it .
Since there is no honest rational answer that would support their supposed outrage at the license refusal .:no:

[Banquo's Ghost]

And a slippery slope is a fallacy. Because one does/alters something it does not follow that he will continue to do so.

I'd like to be as optimistic as you are. History tends to differ.

But we'll see. Have you a view on why President Chavez is considering extending term limits that might convince me to be less gloomy?

[BigTex]

When populist leaders start tinkering with constitutions, especially with term limits, it tends to be the start of slippery slope.

Quoted for the truth. When your removing term limits you are reaching for that "dictator for life" title. But I'm sure it's perfectly suitable for him to have the chance to be re-elected, I mean just look at what his competition has to say about this fair uncorrupted election.

Ahhh lookie there, Tribesy I think your letting your anti-Americanism shine through for once, how cute.

[Tribesman]

Ahhh lookie there, Tribesy I think your letting your anti-Americanism shine through for once, how cute.
How wonderful Tex , so you have nothing to say on the big bogeyman non-issue , what a surprise .

Ahhhhh but anti-americanism shining through , yep :laugh4: it isn't just shining through once , I repeatedly state it , hadn't you noticed before ?
It occurs quite often you know .
It is anti americanism of the "many of your foriegn policies have a strong odour of excrement variety , and a long history of stinking like that " .
But hey its balanced , it gets directed at lots of countries foriegn policies , not just yours .
So if thats the best you can do .....well , your contribution speaks for itself :thumbsdown: I think the word it mainly speaks is "pathetic":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[yesdachi]

strong odour of excrement variety
More excrement, you have some scat fetish don’t you? :wink:

[doc_bean]

I am less sanguine about the term limits plan. To me, term limits are the most important element underpinning democracy, and the desire to suspend or abolish them is almost always an indication of totalitarian sympathies. Almost all leaders find it hard to stand down, since they (almost by definition) believe they are the only ones capable of helping the country.


Well, i don't support that move, but lots of countries get by without term lilits, heck every few years the US wants to abolish them too (well, some politicians anyway).

He doesn't have any serious opposition afaik (in terms of electoral support) so it might make sense to give the people the leader they want, instead of saying they can't choose their own leader because he has been leading them for too long.

[Ser Clegane]

More excrement, you have some scat fetish don’t you?
I thought the message about that in the other thread had been clear enough...

[BigTex]

I thought for a moment that perhaps you were giving a response to what was written by me .

Your question was answered. All those groups listed still exist. All of them seek to militarily overthrow the government and change the constitution. There have been quite a few state law's passed trying to ban certain aspects of them. But they do still exist, including their own newspaper's, which support the groups seeking to overthrow the government. A number of them have tryed to create their own militia's, even a couple succeeded. The black panthers and the Aryan Brotherhood are notorious for this. Both still have some form of a military arm still left to them. In fact here in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex the past few years there has been a growing portion of the militant arm of the black panthers.

The difference between here and chavezes Venezuela is the press associated with those groups are not shut down. They are given full opportunity to voice their opinions, their anger and their plans. As long as they don't act on them nothing is done, it's their right.

If you want your question answered more indepth as it pertains to the USA on both the federal and state level you can do it on your own. Linking to those sites are banned at the org, one rule you've ran into. I'm sure that you wouldn't be trying to lure anybody in the backroom to linking any of that stuff though. No pure coincidence.:oops:

[Adrian II]

I'd like to be as optimistic as you are. History tends to differ.

But we'll see. Have you a view on why President Chavez is considering extending term limits that might convince me to be less gloomy?Chavez does have a problem. In last December's National Assembly elections turn-out was only 25% because the five main opposition parties decided to boycott the ballot.

Politics in Latin America tend to be more personalised, centred around 'strong' individuals with a more or less military image (alternately known as 'caciquismo' or 'caudillismo'). I, too, would prefer Chavez to stay away from term issues. He would do better to improve his political organisation instead of his constitutional position. It takes more than a leader and some social reforms -- spectacular though they may be -- in order to establish democratic socialism.

[Tribesman]

Your question was answered.
No it wasn't . Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with the questions .
But hey if you want to digress since you cannot gve any rational answer to support your position thats fine . I will address you point , and that is that your point is absolute tripe .
Now you mention several groups , you could mention some more if you like , there are lots of groups .
Now am I to assume that you know some of your countries history , some of its laws perhaps ?
Though clearly you don't . Now we could start with that little civil rights act which dealt with shutting down one of those groups you name, it was really just an exention and development of earlier legislation and since than has been further amended , supplemented etc..etc....
Now would you happen to know the Supreme Court rulings which deal with the differences between sedition ,calling for rebellion , inspiring rebellion and just theorising about it ?
Probably not since you appear rather clueless on the differences , the groups however are not so clueless and are very careful to ensure that they don't cross the line , because if they cross the line then they get the full force of the law brought down upon them .
BTW further clarification was needed after the legislation had ben used to political views and theories were wrongly used to throw them in jail for "plotting the downfall of America and the American way":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now you speak of the military arms of two groups there .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You do know what has happened to those individuals from those arms who crossed the line of legality and to at least two of those armed wings entire assets and memberships . Hey they are banned and now are what is commonly known over there as proscribed terrorist organisations , you can give really big sentances to those sort of people you know :yes:
Actually that political party I mentioned just before , you know the one where its members were unconstitutionaly prosecuted and jailed , that party was banned even though it hadn't broken the law . woo hoo freedom and democracy:laugh4:

But now we come to the real point where you collapse entirely .....

The difference between here and chavezes Venezuela is the press associated with those groups are not shut down. They are given full opportunity to voice their opinions, their anger and their plans. As long as they don't act on them nothing is done, it's their right.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Well theres a doozy isn't it .
OK I won't go into one of the continuing appearance of one particular US neo-nazi militants arms web publications , they generally survive for anything up to two weeks before your government catches up enforces its law and shuts them down .
Though it is quite entertaining , if the other numb-nut nazis weren't so stupid as to keep providing links to it when it resurfaces it might stay up for longer .

But don't you get it at all do you , this Venezuelan media outet did do something and it did ct on it, something quite big and very illegal , plus it continues to advocate doing it . :idea2: :idea2: :idea2:
That is why it is being shut down , the same as it would be shut down in any country .

Do you have any idea at all how many publications , individuals and groups have been shut/fined/imprisoned by your government because they have crossed the line of legality in these past few decades ?
Would you like to ask the FBI , part of whose job it is to investigate just that ?(though for fairness I shoud allow you to ask them about only their activities post 1971 since I wouldn't want you to explore the illegal and unconstitutional aspects of it too much ~;) )

[rory_20_uk]

To compare America in its current state of stability with the situation Chavez has is hardly fair. Any country has dissention when they feel safe.

Two examples where America has been extremely hard on its populace are:

The McCarthy Commie trials, where suspicion was guilt.
The Civil War, where Habeus Corpus was suspended.

Using those times, he's bieng very reasonable.

~:smoking:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

doc_bean - I don't like him not only because I disagree with him politically but because people like JAG and Tribesmen treat him like some sort of socialist Messiah.


He doesn't have any serious opposition afaik (in terms of electoral support) so it might make sense to give the people the leader they want, instead of saying they can't choose their own leader because he has been leading them for too long.
Now that's just creepy.

[Kralizec]

The difference between here and chavezes Venezuela is the press associated with those groups are not shut down. They are given full opportunity to voice their opinions, their anger and their plans. As long as they don't act on them nothing is done, it's their right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if CNN told its viewers to pick up arms and overthrow the federal government, they'd be allowed to broadcast for much longer.

[Xiahou]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if CNN told its viewers to pick up arms and overthrow the federal government, they'd be allowed to broadcast for much longer.
Someone's going to have to show me where RCTV actually did that one of these days.

[The Black Ship]

RCTV, along with many other media outlets, supported the attempted 2003 coup. Not surprising really, it would have been in their best interest. They've also supported the nation-wide strike(s) against Chavez. They don't love the guy. He goes against everything they believe in, free-trade, term limits, private property rights, etc...

It is a bit rich to me that the ol' coupmaster (remember in his little play for power 18 died) can get such support on these boards.

[doc_bean]

Now that's just creepy.

In what way ?

Imagine having a president that is actually well liked, that keeps to his promises, balances the budget, stays out of meaningless wars, and has massive electoral support. (note: hypothetical example, not saying Chavez is like this)

Imagine he has a two term limit. Imagine the people next in line to run are Hilary Clinton and John McCain. (they seem to be pretty hated by most people here...) Now, wouldn't you rather the old president had another chance to run ?

Term limits are a good thing, most of the time, certainly in the US (outsider opinion, and not just 'because you get rid of them after 8 years either way'). But it's not *always* for the best.

Now, personally I think this whole personality cult is going to end badly for Venezuela, and Chavez should be more concerned with building a decent party, and platform than with getting all the glory himself. I certainly don't think he's some sort of socialist saint, but as far as government leaders go, he ain't too bad to his people, or the rest of the world.

[Pannonian]

Edit: Heck with that.

[Tribesman]

doc_bean - I don't like him not only because I disagree with him politically but because people like JAG and Tribesmen treat him like some sort of socialist Messiah.

hey hey bubba, CAN'T YOU READ ????? I have said it often enough , in just about every venezuelan politics thread there has been , even in this one ......
to quote myself.....
Look , it isn't hard to make a damn good case against Chavez , why can you not manage to do it at all ?
yet despite all the possibilities of actual real subjects concerning Hugos policies all we get is nonsensical :oops: bad word , what about land reforms , what about delays in practical education application , what about price fixing and artificial support for dead end endeavors purely for their political mass appeal......NOTHING , nil nix nada , absolutely nothing whatsoever apart from some headline crap that doesn't stand up to a moments thought .
Arthur Foxache :dizzy2: none of you (though Redleg did fleetingly touch upon it once IIRC) has drawn any comparisons whatsoever between the agricultural /educational policies and Mugabes major balls up .
So for all you "oh Chavez is so bad and anyone who says otherwise must just be a brainless pinko commie" why the hell don't you damn well think ?

Oh and Rory , why not skip that civil war phase and go on to 1871~:)

That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office
Now then , would not instigating , supporting and even after the event trying to reinstigate the event be a measure of treasonous conduct in the country that the majority of the "oh he is a big bogeyman" posters are on about ?
Can you see why yet you havn't got leg to stand on ?
Or is it that you have seen already and are desperately trying to avoid the questions I asked in my first post ?
Now OK , I know that the KKK legislation that I quoted has been adjusted , amended , but it is still the development of earlier legislation , and hs been amended adjusted through time to be your current legislation .
So ...Keep within the law or face the law . If you don't keep within the law then tough ---- . Live with the consequences .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

doc_bean - you won't find someone like that. Ever. Term limits that end good administrations are a risk we have to take.

Tribesman - sorry, it seems I have mistaken you for JAG. Apologies are in order.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman - sorry, it seems I have mistaken you for JAG. Apologies are in order.
No wocking furries Alex .
But still no worthwhile response from the "big bogeyman" crowd .
I mean come on , Coffee . thats got to be a bit of a bugger that you can really get your teeth into instead of this media non-story nonsense .:inquisitive:
Though maybe Venezualan issues elude them:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: