Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[funk de fino]

No, I get that this is your view. I just happen to disagree with it, for reasons stated earlier

Well I have actual knowledge of it from people in that situation. I guess you don't? They have stated they will never again vote against him. They hate him. It's not so much about what happen now when you vote but what happened previously and what could happen in future. I am very lucky I never find myself in this predicament.

In my view, a source for "RCTV did something wrong" only becomes relevant once there is a factual dispute over something that we both agree would be "wrong" had it actually happened. I didn't interpret your vague statement "bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong" as a request for a source, since there was no factual dispute and "wrongness" has a component of subjectivity to it. I provided you with my argument that RCTV had acted wrongly based on my understanding of what their actions had been along with an invitation to dispute any of the factual details. Had you done so, I would have seen this as a request for a source, but you explicitly declined. If you meant you wanted a source, sorry, but I didn't read it that way and you had ample opportunity to specify what you wanted a source for.

BS, you made claims and then couldnt bring any evidence even when I asked. Then you tried to say I didn't ask. There was a dispute. You were claiming all sorts about the coup and RCTV actions. About why they were taken off air. You supplied nothing to back this up when asked.

I didn't miss it. And your reading comprehension is way off if you think my reply was a whine about you not supplying sources

Go back and read it. You quoted this from me.

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico."

When I posted this it was to say that I did not have the time or the inclination at that point to bring a load of stuff to refute something that you pulled out your arse.

Asking you to clarify which parts you disagree with is not asking you to supply a source.

See above

A. is same as above. B. was not about you not providing sources, but about you declining to answer questions.

And you have declined to bring your sources.

No. See above.

It's not difficult. Bring your sources and we can discuss them. I will bring mine.

I'll give it a read when I get time (I'm a graduate student and don't have a ton of free time). From skimming it, it does seem to indicate some serious problems.

As I've said I'm not a Chavez fan or a Chavez hater (there are things I like and dislike about him). It's certainly possible that he's worse than my current understanding, though, and I do have interest in learning more on the subject.

Frankly the criticism in this report shocked even me. They are not normally against him. Once he realised this was to be an accurate assessment, he stopped them getting in the country. Believe me, there is only one reason I am anti Chavez and it is not political ideology like some here. It's the experiences of friends and colleagues and also in more recent times my company experiences.

 

[Meed]

Well I have actual knowledge of it from people in that situation. I guess you don't?

Rhetorical question? I don't know anyone in Venezuela, no. You asked for my opinion and I gave it.

BS, you made claims and then couldnt bring any evidence even when I asked.

I guess that's your interpretation.

You were claiming all sorts about the coup and RCTV actions. About why they were taken off air. You supplied nothing to back this up when asked.

I don't read "why don't you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong" as a request to back up any specific claim. Even if it was intended that way, you were invited to clarify which points you regardedas inaccurate almost directly afterward (to which you refused repeatedly), so you have no room to complain.

Go back and read it. You quoted this from me.

So? It was an example of your responses when I tried to ask for clarification on which bits you disagreed with. How you read that response and thought it was about me complaining that you didn't provide sources I have no idea. You just misread it.

When I posted this it was to say that I did not have the time or the inclination at that point to bring a load of stuff to refute something that you pulled out your arse.

I didn't ask you for a load of stuff or even for a refutation. I asked you a very simple question. Simply which parts you thought were exaggerated when you said "some parts are right and some are exaggerated" (paraphrase).

It's not difficult. Bring your sources and we can discuss them. I will bring mine.

Actually, it is difficult when you won't specify what you need sources for.

 

[funk de fino]

Actually, it is difficult when you won't specify what you need sources for.

Evidence they carried out actions that warranted being accused of organizing the coup by Chavez that led to you apparently thinking it was OK to take them off air then cable many years later for.

You know, the claims you made about them.

 

[DC]

Evidence they carried out actions that warranted being accused of organizing the coup by Chavez that led to you apparently thinking it was OK to take them off air then cable many years later for.

You know, the claims you made about them.

well well, why dont you proof this was the reason they lost their licence?

official reasion is, they did not renew it, they needed the frequencies.

you claim something else, so its you that needs to backup YOUR claim.

 

[funk de fino]

well well, why dont you proof this was the reason they lost their licence?

official reasion is, they did not renew it, they needed the frequencies.

You do know I am talking about two things dont you?

Did you read the report I linked earlier? Try it.

you claim something else, so its you that needs to backup YOUR claim.

Once again you run from things and try and deflect eh?

 

[funk de fino]

Here is my claim. They were taken off cable and satellite in Jan 2010 for refusing to show Chavez speeches. Read the report I linked and see if you think this is acceptable.

 

[DC]

Here is my claim. They were taken off cable and satellite in Jan 2010 for refusing to show Chavez speeches. Read the report I linked and see if you think this is acceptable.

not a good idea to violate the law.

 

[DC]

Here is my claim. They were taken off cable and satellite in Jan 2010 for refusing to show Chavez speeches. Read the report I linked and see if you think this is acceptable.

they can get back on cabel once they register as National TV station, and follow the Venezuelan laws. for example do they have to tell the viewers before every programm, for what age the programm is, the same we have in switzerland. also do they have to show like every other National TV station the Presidental speeches when this is demanded by the government.

they belived they can escape those rules by going to Miami, but that didnt work out.

its ok for me

 

[DC]

and also the other stations that were turned off by conatel, can come back once they deliver the missing documents. TV Chile and 2 US stations.

 

[DC]

"We applied the law. If they don't follow it, they won't be allowed back on the air."

the same is the case in my country, it isnt in the UK?

 

[funk de fino]

they can get back on cabel once they register as National TV station, and follow the Venezuelan laws. for example do they have to tell the viewers before every programm, for what age the programm is, the same we have in switzerland. also do they have to show like every other National TV station the Presidental speeches when this is demanded by the government.

they belived they can escape those rules by going to Miami, but that didnt work out.

its ok for me

Did you read the report? Do you feel it is accepable that the govt can dictate at ay time that channelsshow their propoganda and Alo Presidente? Do you think it is acceptable for them to make a channel show 7 hours of govt speeches?

If you think so then that is very sad.

 

[funk de fino]

"We applied the law. If they don't follow it, they won't be allowed back on the air."

the same is the case in my country, it isnt in the UK?

No, the govt cannot dictate that the stations show govt speeches anytime they want. The only laws governing airtime are for during election campaigns where all parties are guaranteed airtime. Are the opposition guaranteed airtime in Venezuela?

What would happen in Switzerland if the stations were forced to show so many govt speeches as RCTV would be? The law is only for specific things in Venezuela not just for any old speeches or his programs. Read the report. its all in there.

 

[dudalb]

So Chavez is truning out to be just another Latin American "EL Presidente" type. Only difference between him and the others is his use of Marxist rhetoric.

 

[funk de fino]

Article 192 of the Organic Law on Telecommunications provides the following:

Without prejudice to the legal provisions applicable to matters of security and defense, the President of the Republic may, either directly or through the National Telecommunications Commission, order operators of subscription television services, using their customer information channel, and the operators of open-to-air radio television broadcasters, to carry, free of charge, messages and official addresses made by the President or Vice-President of the Republic or cabinet ministers. Regulations shall be established to determine the mechanisms, limitations, and other features of these transmissions and broadcasts. Publicity by public entities is not subject to the obligation established in this article

the large number of blanket government broadcasts in the media. Blanket broadcasts force media stations to cancel their regular programming and transmit information as ordered by the government. Many of them were of a duration and frequency that could be considered abusive in light of the information they conveyed, not always intended to serve the public interest

Additionally, the information received indicates that in 2008, communications media had transmitted 186 blanket broadcasts (172 hours and 55 minutes), while in July of 2009, there were 75 messages broadcast (88 hours and 19 minutes). The information also shows that on January 13, 2009, the longest blanket broadcast of the period of 1999-2009 was aired, equivalent to 7 hours and 34 minutes. Such figures do not include the transmission of the program Aló Presidente, the ten minutes daily for governmental messages imposed by the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, or the official publicity that is typical in television or radio

He is also trying to get this to apply to international channels.

The lack of control in the exercise of this power could degrade the legitimate purpose of this mechanism, converting it into a tool for propaganda. Already in the Joint Declaration of 2003 of the Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression, it was clearly established that “[m]edia outlets should not be required by law to carry messages from specified political figures, such as the president.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So Chavez is truning out to be just another Latin American "EL Presidente" type. Only difference between him and the others is his use of Marxist rhetoric.

What about support for terrorists like FARC or mass murderers like Idi Amin?

Or is that what the evil capitalist propaganda model wants us to think?

 

[Praktik]

So by that standard Im sure you're out there complaining about the documented links between the Colombian government and the terrorist antagonists of the FARC, the paras?

Or is that just what the left wing propagandists want us to think?

Yes yes, I'm being snide. Just wondering why the myopia on Colombia and FARC being the only murderous thugs being called out...

 

[Meed]

The US has supported many brutal murderers and oppressive leaders. For instance, Sadam Hussein, Suharto, the Saudis, Diem, and so on. And we still do. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but I don't think verbal praise for FARC and a deceased dictator is much of a criticism... especially if you claim to support the United States, which seems to be your usual stance. Unfortunately our politics is very PR and speech obsessed, as opposed to action-focused. If you compare someone to a Nazi or say something positive about an unliked figure you may be in trouble, but if you give Sadam a bunch of chemical and biological weapons few will take notice.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think verbal praise for FARC and a deceased dictator is much of a criticism...

What about the hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to FARC?

 

[WildCat]

If you compare someone to a Nazi or say something positive about an unliked figure you may be in trouble, but if you give Sadam a bunch of chemical and biological weapons few will take notice.

Who gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons? And what biological weapons did Saddam have?

 

[Skeptic]

Long experience in this forum shows that whenever someone starts with "But the USA did eeeeeeeeeeeevil things too!", it's equivalent to "yes, I was an idiot for thinking yet another dictator is a 'man of the people' because he claims to be a 'socialist'".