Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[Meed]

You consider the US's support of murderers evil then?

BTW, I don't consider verbal praise of a dead murderer evil, just distasteful.

 

[WildCat]

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

Cornsail?

 

[DC]

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.

you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

your claims contradict my information

http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/146964

State's Access to Free and Obligatory Spaces
The government has limited access to the airwaves for announcements of national significance. These spaces shall not exceed 60 weekly minutes or 15 daily minutes. The organization in charge of communications and information will determine the time and frequency of these spaces, granting users 10 minutes out of the 60 weekly minutes as a guarantee of access to service providers.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm

 

[DC]

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.

doe UK TV stations have to follow the UK laws?

 

[DC]

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?

you got evidence?

 

[DC]

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

Evidence?

 

[McHrozni]

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm

From their web site:
The VIO receives funding from the government of Venezuela.

Do you have something independent? I mean I find it hardly surprising that Venezuelan government would want it's policies praised, and only praised. From this perspective, any US government source is considered far more reliable.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

From their web site:
The VIO receives funding from the government of Venezuela.

Do you have something independent? I mean I find it hardly surprising that Venezuelan government would want it's policies praised, and only praised. From this perspective, any US government source is considered far more reliable.

McHrozni

there is also a german link.

and got any evidence they lied about the law?

 

[DC]

From their web site:
The VIO receives funding from the government of Venezuela.

Do you have something independent? I mean I find it hardly surprising that Venezuelan government would want it's policies praised, and only praised. From this perspective, any US government source is considered far more reliable.

McHrozni

Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

 

[McHrozni]

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

The title of the article, also seen in your link, is:

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression

A few snips:

“This legislation severely threatens press freedom in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

[snip]

These provisions violate international standards protecting free expression.

[snip]

Several of the norms are ill-defined and subjective, and stations that infringe them would be subject to tough penalties.

[snip]

Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

Would you please explain how come your own source directly contradicts what you're saying, and why did you not copy the highly relevant part of the paragraph? That's the part I put in bold, in case you're wondering.

Perhaps I should rephrase my challenge:
Could you please come up with an independent source that is in agreement with your claims?

McHrozni

 

[DC]

The title of the article, also seen in your link, is:

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression

A few snips:

“This legislation severely threatens press freedom in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

[snip]

These provisions violate international standards protecting free expression.

[snip]

Several of the norms are ill-defined and subjective, and stations that infringe them would be subject to tough penalties.

[snip]

Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

Would you please explain how come your own source directly contradicts what you're saying, and why did you not copy the highly relevant part of the paragraph? That's the part I put in bold, in case you're wondering.

Perhaps I should rephrase my challenge:
Could you please come up with an independent source that is in agreement with your claims?

McHrozni

what is my claim? and what is the contradiction?

 

[McHrozni]

what is my claim? and what is the contradiction?

It wasn't so much of a claim as it was a challenge:
you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

Contradiction:

You quoted this article:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

Containing this paragraph:
Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

And I do think I should stress this part:
This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages.

Therefore your own source already fulfills your challenge, and your implicit claim that Hugo isn't forcing TV stations to transmit his BS. I'm tempted to put you under stundies, really.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

It wasn't so much of a claim as it was a challenge:
you have any evidence that they show Alo presidente, you have any evidence they force the channels to show more than 60 Minutes per week?

Contradiction:

You quoted this article:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression

Containing this paragraph:
Television and radio stations would be obliged to transmit the government’s educational, informative or public safety broadcasts for up to 60 minutes a week. This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages. Such an obligation is an illegitimate interference in editorial freedom.

And I do think I should stress this part:
This is in addition to the president’s powers under article 192 of the Telecommunications Act (introduced in 2000 by the government of President Hugo Chávez) to order stations to transmit in full his speeches and other political messages.

Therefore your own source already fulfills your challenge, and your implicit claim that Hugo isn't forcing TV stations to transmit his BS. I'm tempted to put you under stundies, really.

McHrozni

my source did not contain any evidence, just claims.
but when the source is anti chavez, that seems to be not important at all.
but when the source is pro chavez, it gets rejected just because its pro chavez.

 

[DC]

and your implicit claim that Hugo isn't forcing TV stations to transmit his BS.

thats not true at all. they are forced, the debate is about how often and how long.

 

[McHrozni]

my source did not contain any evidence, just claims.

Oh so you're saying your own source is unreliable and should be ignored?

but when the source is anti chavez, that seems to be not important at all.

Of course it's not if you recommend it as a source. Either you agree it is a legitimate source of information, or you don't use it as a source. But you can't say there are some sentences that you agree with in a source and ignore the rest - that's cherry picking, and exactly what you did.

but when the source is pro chavez, it gets rejected just because its pro chavez.

See above. Oh, and:
(...) over recent years, the Venezuelan government appears to have established a pattern of clamping down on dissent through the use of legislative and administrative methods to silence and harrass critics (...)

(...) Laws are being used to justify what essentially seem to be politically motivated charges (...)

(...) the Venezuelan government is deliberately targeting opponents.

(...) the three police commissioners, Ivan Simonovis, Lazaro Forero and Henry Vivas (...) are political prisoners because they oppose President Chavez (...)

Source?
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5261

Cherry-picking and quote-mining is not very difficult at all. Yet it seems you only approve of it if an "anti-Chavez" source such as Human rights watch. Why is that? Please explain, I'm dying to know.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

thats not true at all. they are forced, the debate is about how often and how long.

According to Human rights watch, the whole thing is quite extensive. Do you consider them a reliable source of information?

McHrozni

 

[DC]

According to Human rights watch, the whole thing is quite extensive. Do you consider them a reliable source of information?

McHrozni

i would if they would backup their claims with a source or atleast more detailed information.

 

[DC]

Oh so you're saying your own source is unreliable and should be ignored?



Of course it's not if you recommend it as a source. Either you agree it is a legitimate source of information, or you don't use it as a source. But you can't say there are some sentences that you agree with in a source and ignore the rest - that's cherry picking, and exactly what you did.



See above. Oh, and:
(...) over recent years, the Venezuelan government appears to have established a pattern of clamping down on dissent through the use of legislative and administrative methods to silence and harrass critics (...)

(...) Laws are being used to justify what essentially seem to be politically motivated charges (...)

(...) the Venezuelan government is deliberately targeting opponents.

(...) the three police commissioners, Ivan Simonovis, Lazaro Forero and Henry Vivas (...) are political prisoners because they oppose President Chavez (...)

Source?
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5261

Cherry-picking and quote-mining is not very difficult at all. Yet it seems you only approve of it if an "anti-Chavez" source such as Human rights watch. Why is that? Please explain, I'm dying to know.

McHrozni

i have brought up the best source about the law i could find. you rejected it because they get money from the Government. but i cant find any other source that would provide detailed information about the laws in question. Just claims without backup.

 

[DC]

so i must go for another few days.

60 minutes per week max. not very good, but i think acceptable, should be only for emergencys in my oppinion.

a 7 hour alo presidente on all channels? no way acceptable, but just not following the law is also not smart. but for this i first have to see evidence.

but at the end, its up to the venezuelan voters.

 

[McHrozni]

i have brought up the best source about the law i could find. you rejected it because they get money from the Government. but i cant find any other source that would provide detailed information about the laws in question. Just claims without backup.

Obviously the said law is not the only problem with the lack of media freedom in Venezuela.

That said, there is absolutely nothing in that article that would qualify as evidence, only claims. There are a total of four (4) citations on the bottom, near as I can tell all having to do with taking cheap shots against the US.

60 minutes per week max. not very good, but i think acceptable, should be only for emergencys in my oppinion.

Oh sure, just like the Roman republic, that was in a "state of emergency" between 44 B.C. to 476 A.D.

Again, slowly so you have a chance in understanding: the said law is not, repeat, not, the only reason media freedom is endangered in Venezuela. It is one of the reasons.

but at the end, its up to the venezuelan voters.

Which are, in the meantime, continuously bombarded with government messages about the evils of the opposition and the exploits of Hugo the Great. Do you really think there is adequate room for a democratic debate in the light of all the evidence presented?

McHrozni