Human Rights Watch on Hugo Chavez...

[SaveElmer]

Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression

(Washington, DC, May 22, 2007)—The Venezuelan government’s politically motivated decision not to renew a television broadcasting license is a serious setback for freedom of expression in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision will shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the country’s oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007.

President Hugo Chávez has repeatedly threatened to cancel RCTV’s license ever since he accused it of supporting an April 2002 coup attempt. On December 28, 2006, he announced during a military ceremony that the order not to renew the channel’s 20-year license had already been drafted.

“President Hugo Chávez is misusing the state’s regulatory authority to punish a media outlet for its criticism of the government,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “The move to shut down RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela.”

Of the three commercial stations accessible in all parts of Venezuela, only RCTV has remained strongly critical of the government. The other two—Venevision and Televen—were themselves accused of supporting the attempted coup and subsequent anti–government protests. But both have since removed virtually all content critical of the government from their programming.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

[1932]

1. I'm worried reading some of the criticism of Venezuela that if Fox News

supported the overthrow of the next Democratic president of the US and then lost its broadcast license (but not its cable or satellite license) for doing so, a lot of DU'ers would defend Fox.

[Sapphire Blue]

10. Excellent analogy!

[NoPasaran]

18. Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license

Your analogy sucks

[jefferson_dem]

19. It sucks but it is the standard talking point Hugo apologists are offering up.

Faux News... oooga booga...

Apparently, they got the memo and are serving as dutiful soldiers...

[1932]

59. Yeah. I got the memo. It came down from my brain as part of a thought exercise

that any thinking and informed citizen should engage in when being presented a lot of bull shit from the U.S. media and a government that cares about one thing: tipping the balance of wealth and power more in favor of the powerful.

[1932]

54. Thanks to FCC deregulating everything, I suspect they own a few stations

and probably multiple stations and newspapers in the same market.

[sabbat hunter]

81. ok lets take this tact then

if a democratic president revoked the license of your local FOX network affiliate, because of their corporate ties to Fox news, how would you feel?

[rinsd]

22. If the Democrats then turned FoxNews into a party propaganda arm, I hope DUer would be upset.

We know the Chavez lovers have no problem with such authoritarism where rights only exist for those that agree with them politically.

[1932]

55. I'm not sure about democrats, but I'd love it if there were a LABOR TV station

that did nothign but broadcast pro-working class propaganda, or if there were an anti-neoliberal TV station...

Then we could start talking about 'balance' in the media.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. It would be more bothersome

if the government took over the station itself, rather than sell it to another independent entity.

[1932]

56. That analogy doesn't work, since ownership of the Ven. station hasn't changed hands

and, as you know, it's still operating, just not over-the-air in the public airwave spectrum.

[MonkeyFunk]

67. Why do you keep spouting that lie?

the assets of the broadcast operation were taken over by the government.

[1932]

Who controls the assets required to broadcast over cable, satellite and internet?

RCTV.

Your own cite showed that yesterday.

Why are you trying so hard to spin this story?

And why are you so nasty? "Spouting that lie"??? You know exactly what I've said. You've seen the links supporting these facts. And your own links do not contradict it.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. and their cable audience is a small fraction

the government took over the broadcast assets.

You're being ridiculous.

[1932]

111. FWIW

here's the cable and satellite penetration rates for 6 latin American countries in 2002:

http://www.worldscreen.com/latinamerica.php

Venezuela has third highest cable penetration rate (20%) and the highest satellite penetration rate (5.5%). That's a fraction. I'm not sure it's a small fraction.

But if Chavez keeps building up the middle class, you can bet there will be more cable and satellite subscribers and RCTV can get their audience back.

And I'm assuming that, by ignoring my question, you're conceding that they own the broadcast facilities for cable and satellite and internet.

[1932]

77. Who controls the assets required to broadcast over cable, satellite and internet?

RCTV.

Your own cite showed that yesterday.

Why are you trying so hard to spin this story?

And why are you so nasty? "Spouting that lie"??? You know exactly what I've said. You've seen the links supporting these facts. And your own links do not contradict it.

[1932]

Who controls the assets required to broadcast over cable, satellite and internet?

RCTV.

Your own cite showed that yesterday.

Why are you trying so hard to spin this story?

And why are you so nasty? "Spouting that lie"??? You know exactly what I've said. You've seen the links supporting these facts. And your own links do not contradict it.

[1932]

78. Who controls the assets required to broadcast over cable, satellite and internet?

RCTV.

Your own cite showed that yesterday.

Why are you trying so hard to spin this story?

And why are you so nasty? "Spouting that lie"??? You know exactly what I've said. You've seen the links supporting these facts. And your own links do not contradict it.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. dupe

(in every sense of the word)

[Colobo]

2. Very good for HRW.

[rudeboy666]

3. I blame the CIA......[sarcasm]

[killbotfactory]

4. It's not just some unmerited accusation from Chavez

Go to google video and watch The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The coup plotters colluded with private media to censor the press of any pro-Chavez information, and tried to overthrow the government. It's on tape. Everybody in the entire world basically has access to this.

[Colobo]

5. Was this produced by sympathizers of Chavez?

[killbotfactory]

11. Probably.

They were irish filmmakers doing a story on Chavez, and got caught in the middle up in the middle of the coup. They didn't fake any footage, and they show a lot of it.

[Tellurian]

15. No, they weren't sympathizers..

The Irish were doing it from a strictly newsworthy pov. They wanted to get in and get out. At that time I was posting on another message board. They accessed that board online and randomly posted to me asking how they could contact Palast by cell phone. Palast was scheduled to arrive on the scene or was already there. What transpired after that, I don't know. I've never heard anymore about it.

[1932]

16. The coup leaders gaven the Irish guys great access to their side of the story

so, if they coup leaders had had a more compelling story, they had every opportunity to tell it.

As it turned out, they didn't have very compelling reasons for overthrowing a democratically-elected government, and those reasons ended up on the screen.

[Tellurian]

17. The Irish told me..

and believe me, they were frightened of this whole ordeal. They felt this was a US CiA led coup (at the behest of Bush for the oil companies trying to muscle in for oil contracts). This was not the first time Chavez was threatened w/ assassination, but this time came the closest to getting the job done. They said, Chavez had been forewarned (by who, they didn't say...) and the reason he survived.

[1932]

49. He was warned by the secretary general of Opec, Ali Rodriguez

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,858072,00.html

[sabbat hunter]

21. a free press

is under no obligation to broadcast pro chavez (or pro/anti anything) that is the great thing about a free press. only a government can censor the press. the press choosing to publish or not to publish something is their right.

[killbotfactory]

44. When they are using public airwaves

They have to conform to certain laws and standards.

One of those standards, I think, is not inciting violence, and not trying to overthrow the governmen, or having a news blackout while they are trying to do it.

[sabbat hunter]

47. they can have a news blackout if they choose

they have no requirements that they MUST cover a news story.

[killbotfactory]

60. So they get to use the public airwaves for their own good

not that of the public?

[MonkeyFunk]

74. that's what you get

with "independent" media. Do you want any government deciding what constitutes "good"?

[killbotfactory]

93. the "Independent" media colluded with each other and the coup plotters

and blacked out news which ran opposite to their views.

Is that promoting freedom and democracy and a diversity of opinion?

[MonkeyFunk]

99. Why can't anybody respond

to the actual points made, without just yelling "they supported the coup!".

I stipulate that losing their license was OK. My concern is that the government took over the station, rather than selling it to another owner or owners.

There were already 2 government-controlled channels. Why did he need a third one?

I don't think ANY democracy is served by having government control over so much of the media.

[sabbat hunter]

79. it is called freedom of press and speech

the government doesnt get to dictate what the press says or doesnt say. would you want someone like shrub dictating what news must be shown on the air or what must not be shown? the only limits are the obscenity rules

they are not really 'public' airwaves. the government regulates them so you do not have a whole bunch of people trying to broadcast on the same frequency. blocking each other out in some case. an individual cannot legally just start to broadcast from his or her basement a new TV station.


now what you have going on in venezuela is that the government now controls that broadcast signal and is deciding what will be broadcast, what news people are allowed to see. is taht better? i think not.

[killbotfactory]

94. The press can still say pretty much whatever they want

They just don't get to use the public airwaves to do it.

The government ALWAYS controls broadcast signals. What do you think the FCC does?

[MonkeyFunk]

100. they do not

control political content.

[killbotfactory]

106. We used to in the US, under the fairness doctrine.

I'm pretty sure the BBC is also under orders to be as neutral as possible, politically.

[MonkeyFunk]

69. So why is he threatening to shut down

the cable operations of globovision?

[killbotfactory]

98. For allegedly inciting an assassination plot

They are going to be investigated, and if guilty, charged.

But that won't be good enough. It will just be claimed Chavez controls the courts.

[MonkeyFunk]

104. well

if they're charged with something, that's a positive step. Too bad he didn't charge anyone in RCTV.

Now, as to Globovision... the argument used to defend seizing RCTV was that they used the public airwaves to the detriment of the people. But how does that argument apply to a cable station?

People guilty of a crime can be prosecuted and jailed, but does he have the right to shut down a private cable station that doesn't use the public airwaves?

[killbotfactory]

105. They will most likely be fined if guilty

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Whatever you do, don't think about oil or neo-liberalism. OK? n/t

[Peace Patriot]

7. If we were to deny licenses to use our PUBLIC airwaves to Faux News, CNN, ABC,

NBC, CBS, fascist radio corporations, and to all monopolistic news, entertainment and, in some cases, war industry conglomerates--for their war propaganda and other disinformation--and give those licenses to thousands of small, feisty, creative, competitive news and entertainment businesses, worker coops, non-profits and government funded broadcasting, would free speech be harmed or enhanced?

We make a big mistake mixing up free speech and corporate speech. They are very nearly opposites. Free speech is for PEOPLE. Corporations engage in corporatespeak not free speech, and they have become fascist vampires, living forever, accumulating far, far too much wealth and power, and sucking the blood out of our democracy.

I wouldn't mourn any of them. I wouldn't think it any kind of curtailment of free speech to be rid of the lot of them. I think it would help RESTORE American democracy, and greatly enhance our nation's political and cultural health to de-license them all.

We have that right. The airwaves are PUBLIC property, and subject to regulation and public policy requirements to get a license. Good democracies take care not to let private business get too much control of public discourse by monopolizing the limited TV/radio bandwidth. We once had a good democracy that did just that, with the "Fairness Doctrine" and strict rules against monopolistic practices. Then came Reagan, and now Bush.

On their behavior around the Iraq War alone, we can--and should--challenge every one of their licenses, and bust up their conglomerates. The Venezuelan government had much more cause than that, however. RCTV actively participated in a violent military coup attempt, in which the elected president of the country was kidnapped and his life threatened, the elected National Assembly (Congress) and the court system were shut down, and the Constitution was suspended. RCTV hosted meetings of these plotters, broadcast disinformation on their behalf--for instance, falsely telling the public that Hugo Chavez had resigned (he had not)--and encouraged murderous protesters to take to the streets in support of the coup--some of whom shot and killed Chavez supporters.

See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary of the coup attempt, which chronicles what RCTV did. (--available at AxisofLogic.com)

That was not "free speech." That was complicity in violent overthrow of the government. Luckily, the Venezuelan people had learned to take RCTV news for the load of crap that it is, didn't believe them, and flooded into the streets in support of their president and their Constitution.

In any case, my point is not overt criminality on the part of corporate news monopolies, but rather, simply, their deadly, anti-democratic impact on public discourse. For that alone, we have the right to pull their licenses, and, if we care to, to pull their corporate charters and seize their assets for the public good. Corporations are merely chartered entities--artificial entities--that operate only with the PERMISSION of the people of the United States and their various state governments. They have no right to exist. They have no human or civil rights whatsoever, but those that we choose to grant them for conducting some business that WE deem is in the public interest.

Many U.S. corporations have grown into global corporate predators, who threaten not only our own democracy, but also world peace, and the very survival of our planet and of the human race. Their propaganda arms--our war profiteering corporate news monopolies--are NOT some sacred ikons of "free speech." That is just laughable, after what we have been through with them, on the Iraq War, the Bush Junta, massive Bushite crime, the ripping up of our Constitution, and the destruction of our election system (corporations again--and their "trade secret," proprietary vote counting).

Venezuela is showing us the way BACK TOWARD real free speech, real political discussion, the encouragement of diversity, fair representation of all views, and the full spectrum of the "marketplace of ideas." We have forgotten what it is like. We have forgotten what free speech MEANS.

WHY isn't "Human Rights Watch" putting a "watch" on the Bush Junta--on torture, on illegal detention, on massive domestic spying, on voter "caging" lists, on non-transparent electronic voting, and on the blatant collusion between the Bush Junta and our war profiteering corporate news monopolies? Why are they defending the fatcats at RCTV who tried to overthrow a legitimate government--the FIRST government in Venezuela's history that has represented all of its people, including vast poor population?

I cry foul on this. Something's not right. And I think that it's Human Rights Watch that needs investigating. They seem to be buying into the Bush Wonderland of upside down, backwards priorities. They are spouting Bush State Department talking points. What are their ties to the Bush State Department? Where are they getting their funding?


----------------------------

For real information about Venezuela and the Boliviarian revolution, I recommend: www.venezuelanalysis.com.

[knowbody0]

9. sadly, it appears everyone has a price

Thank you for posting this.

[slipslidingaway]

20. So true!!! "We make a big mistake mixing up free speech and

corporate speech."

Thanks and the HRW article is misleading IMO.

[rinsd]

23. Human Rights Watch needs investigating?

Everything is always everyone's else's fault except for poor little Hugo.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

24. The real information DIRECT for Chavez's own little website.

:eyes:

BTW here's Human Rights Watch on the US http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[beachmom]

25. Well, this is hardly what ANYONE is suggesting.

I don't want Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or the networks silenced. I just want to persuade people that they are not doing their jobs, and to use the internet more for info. And maybe some of the bigger blogs will morph into a cable channel some day. And maybe then, the media will figure out that they haven't been doing their job and will redouble their efforts. I want to win this thing fair and square -- using the marketplace of ideas to do so. That's what democracy is about. I do not support censorship of freedom of speech, even the most insidious speech, as long as it doesn't break the law. And if it does, then you prosecute those who did it, not revoke an ENTIRE license.

[The Magistrate]

8. The Problem, Mr. Elmer, Is That the Station Participated In A Failed Coup

Normally, that results in death. Mere revokation of a lisence is mildness to the point of laudable benevolence....

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Well

then people should've prosecuted. In fact, nobody was even charged.

But the big issue for me is not that they lost their license - it's that Chavez appropriated the station and many of its assets for yet another government-run media outlet.

Nobody has ever explained to me why that's preferable to auctioning off the station to another, independent entity.

[rinsd]

36. Or why two other coup particpants got their licenses renewed....

...after stopping criticism of the government.

[The Magistrate]

46. Many Crimes Go Un-Prosecuted, Sir

Many times no charges are brought. There are a variety of reasons for this. One that often impacts a wise political leader's calculations is the adage advising ot to press a desperate foe too hard, another is the benefit of behaving better than your opponents, better than anyone has a right to expect you to behave. That a leader chose not to bring charges does not alter the fact that the company collaborated in an act of armed rebellion against the state. This is not a thing people can do with any expectation there will be no unpleasant consequences for failure.

"When you strike a King, you must kill him."

[SaveElmer]

53. I have to disagree...

Chavez's history does not indicate he is shy about prosecuting people he believes have wronged him, or in using the police and judiciary for political purposes...

It is very hard to believe, that a group that allegedly was involved in a coup attempt would simply be left alone for 5 years, but then all of a sudden their crime was so great the entire network had to be turned into another media arm of the state....

It looks suspiciously like yet another step in the centralization of power in Venezuela...

[The Magistrate]

65. It Is A Question Of Degree, Sir

Look across the border to Columbia for a contrasting example. There, people who government leaders feel have wronged them are tortured to death and left lying in the streets, quite routinely. Private para-military bodies co-operating with the government do most of the dirtiest work, aided by soldiers and police, quite openly. No one alleges such crimes against Col. Chavez; certainly neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch does. If there were any number of his social and political opponents being disappearted and murdered, we would never hear the end of it, such is the intensity of the propaganda campaign against him in this country. The absence of such charges is the surest proof such things certainly are not occuring in Venezuela, and cannot even be credibly sharged to be occuring.

Col. Chavez is a species of revolutionist, and he is come to power in a country that has long needed a good revolution. It does not trouble me that a revolutionist gains and holds power, and shuts down the avenues available to counter-revolutionary resistance, particularly when he manages it in a spectacularly blood-less manner. That deserves commendation, not condemnation: it is pretty rare in history. How it will turn out, of course, remains up in the air, but there is nothing wrong with putting land in the hands of the landless by expropriation, and diverting the income from national assets to the needs of the mass fo a country's populace, instead of to the coffers of its largely hereditary upper castes. That is at least what most everyone in Venezuela thinks is going on: the battle lines there are between those who think it is a bad thing to do this, and those who think it is a good thing to do it.

In the period of the Cold War, there was at least some rationale beyond merely siding with the elite in favor of sweating the people of a country when something like this was occuring, because such things invariably opened a ground to the Soviets, whatever the original intention of the movement and its leaders. That, however, is wholly gone. How other countries manage their economic and social and political affairs ought to be a matter of complete indifference to the U.S. government and the people of country, save in cases of extreme criminality. If there is any interest at all, it ought to be in seeing more just arrangements, bringing greater benefit to the mass of the people in another country, come about. The old oligarchs are no longer useful tools in a global struggle with a totalitarian enemy, and ought to be left to whatever occurs in the countries they predate upon.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. But you didn't respond to the bigger question...

why was the station turned into yet another government channel? Why not sell it? How many stations does Chavez need?

[The Magistrate]

88. What Makes That A Larger Question, Sir?

It does not particularly interest me.

Perhaps he wpould rather have the channel than the money it would bring....

[MonkeyFunk]

91. It's a larger question for me

because I believe in the value of independent media in a democracy.

There were already two government-controlled channels in Venezuela. Why did he need a third?

[Forkboy]

43. This point seems to get ignored.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

45. Not at all...

But as others have pointed out it's been 5 years since the alleged involvement of the station...why weren't those that making the threats prosecuted at the time...and why is it being turned into yet another state run station instead of giving it to another private organization...and why are other stations being allowed to keep their licenses that also made threats...after they ceased them?

Chavez seems to be using this a further opportunity to centralize power. One union, one political party, now one media...

[Forkboy]

71. I think one thing that's happened with this whole issue is a collision between two decided views.

It seems to me like nearly everyone discussing this issue has already reached a conclusion,and with each bumping up against each other those positions have just been dug in.

I'm a little wary of both sides.The tendency to agree with Chavez is understandable in two ways to me.One,the US has a long history of trying to destabilize any government that doesn't kiss American ass,and Venezuela is at the top of that list,or damn near to it (maybe Iran would be first).Two,he was democratically elected by his people,so they obviously see him in a far more positive light than many up here do,and I would think they know what's best for their own country.

I also understand the wariness of those against Chavez.They may be right that this is the first step down a slippery slope.

However,in the end I can totally understand why a country would like to lead itself,and not be lead by the US,or a de facto puppet that we can take advantage of (and you know we would if we could...lots of oil down there,and we know full well how that changes the dynamics involved,and why I distrust some of those complaining with RW talking points about it).

I do believe many people are against this for the right reasons,and aren't just playing RW politics,but I think they should also keep in mind that they can be manipulated as easily as those defending Chavez can be.

Bottom line to me is that we should let things develop on their own.Right now the complaints about this are often about what MIGHT happen down the road as much as what's already happened.The simple fact is we don't know how things will go unless we give them the chance to determine it on their own.I would think the Venezuelans will recognize another dictator pretty quickly.

I also can look right here in the US,and the amount of poor and homeless,the rampant greed and corruption,the basic failure of capitalism to provide for the neediest among us.I don't blame any country for trying a different way,and I think we should respect their right to try it out.The upside is as big as the downside is dangerous.Either way,it's not for us to decide.

I think your questions have been answered in various ways elsewhere by others better informed that I,so I'm afraid I can't really add anything that hasn't been said in regards to them.

Thanks for answering me in a thoughtful way.I appreciate it.

[MonkeyFunk]

72. But I haven't drawn a firm conclusion

I think Chavez has done a lot of good, but this move really concerns me.

And yet none of his supporters can discuss it without being insulting, derisive or deliberately obtuse.

If, in fact, the station was complicit in a coup attempt, then they should lose their license (although I would've liked to have seen actual charges and convictions, and not just Chavez' say-so on that matter). But having lost the license, I see no reason why Chavez needed to appropriate the station for himself - he already has two channels. How many more does he need?

And... now he's threatening the cable operations of globovision.

Whatever good Chavez may be doing, are none of his supporters concerned about this? If democracy is his true goal, isn't independent media a large part of that?

[Forkboy]

73. I didn't say everyone had.

And yet none of his supporters can discuss it without being insulting, derisive or deliberately obtuse.

Going through the threads I've seen that ugliness from both sides equally,which is why I think both sides are dug in and talking right past each other at this point.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Yes

I see some Chavez haters, some Chavez apologists, and people like me who ask questions are ignored entirely.

I haven't seen one Chavez apologist concede the slightest ground - it's like a cult of personality. Nothing he does can questioned.

I want to know why people think it's OK to appropriate the station as yet another government mouthpiece instead of selling it.

I want to know why he's threatening the cable operations of Globovision.

I want to know why nobody at RCTV was charged with a crime.

[Forkboy]

76. I honestly don't know enough to answer them for you.

Like I say,the battle lines are drawn,and I'm not sure there are any simple answers to them.

And DU may not even be the right place to ask them anyways. :)

[IndianaGreen]

12. FAIR's response to HRW and others, regarding RCTV's license not being renewed

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.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5337/1/260

[AtomicKitten]

13. The station was advocating overthrow of the government.

Not dissent, but a coup. Hard to imagine that that would be allowed to fly five minutes in the United States much less five years. The people of Valenzuela are more po'd because that station produces their soap operas and their version of American idol than they are about any political censorship.

The truth is BushCo and Faux News et al are perfectly fine with non-regulation of business and are beating the drums on this to further their anti-Chavez campaign already in progress.

Chavez has perpetrated some fascist moves, but I do not think this particular one falls strictly within the guidelines you are trying to paint.

[1932]

14. Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2384: up to 20 years in jail and a fine

The article explained if an individual or organization of any kind incited public hostility, violence and anti-government rebellion under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, they would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for the crime of sedition.

They might also be subject to prosecution for treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution stating: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" such as instigating an insurrection or rebellion and/or sabotage to a national defense utility that could include state oil company PDVSA's facilities vital to the operation and economic viability of the country and welfare of its people. It would be for US courts to decide if conspiring to overthrow a democratically government conformed to this definition, but it's hard imagining it would not at least convict offenders of sedition.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2050

[rinsd]

27. So why weren't the station managers and owners prosecuted?

Instead Chavez seized the stations for government purposes.

Could it be that show of force would cow other networks?

Could it be that its a valuable medium to diseeminate his propaganda?

[Balbus]

48. That's the question that never seems to be answered...

People blather on and on about how the evil station tried to kidnap Chavez, overthrow the government, kill puppies, etc, etc, but no one seems to know why there were no charges pressed or anyone convicted.

What a rub that must be...

[1932]

62. You wonder why people don't explain why the coup plotters aren't being prosecuted?

You could do a little research. It's actually an interesting story.

Some of the snipers have confessed and are in jail. Others have run off to miami. A prosector was assassinated.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. and nobody

At RCTV was ever even charged with a crime. Why?

[killbotfactory]

96. Maybe this is why

'On November 18, 2004, leading state prosecutor Danilo Anderson was assassinated, shortly before he was scheduled to bring charges against 400 people who allegedly participated in the coup. Meanwhile Carmona and several other participants in the events of 11 April went into exile."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt#Aftermath

[MonkeyFunk]

101. That had nothing to do with RCTV

He was prosecuting military people involved. Nobody at RCTV was ever charged.

And are you saying Venezuela only had one prosecutor?

[killbotfactory]

108. Bush was never legally charged with lying us into an illegal war

Does that mean you would be against his impeachment?

Not everything is so cut and dry, especially in politics where powerful people are almost never brought to justice for their crimes.

[killbotfactory]

63. Powerful people and politics

The first group they tried to charge had the case overturned by the supreme court of Venezuela, then controlled by the opposition, which stated that there was no coup. By the time that decision was overturned, the people charged had fled the country. It was probably easier to just let the license expire than to try to prosecute anyone.

And if the heads of television stations started being arrested, what do you think the reaction in the press would be?

[MonkeyFunk]

84. Again

you're misinformed.

The people involved in that case were in the military. Nobody from RCTV was ever charged with anything.

[killbotfactory]

95. Of for fucks sake

If you can't admit that RCTV took part in the coup, this arguement is useless.

[MonkeyFunk]

102. I've never such a thing

but it's what the Chavez apologists keep trying to argue.

I've never said they weren't complicit in the coup. My position is that if they were involved, due process should require that the government's case be proven in court. Instead, we just have the say-so of the government. The government is probably right - but that's still not due process.

Seizing the station and converting it into yet another government mouthpiece without due process is a cause for concern, imo. We wouldn't stand for it here, would we?

[killbotfactory]

107. It's being turned into a public broadcasting station

It won't be another mouthpiece for Chavez.

[MonkeyFunk]

110. do you think they'll

be critical of Chavez, when warranted? I don't.

[1932]

50. Because Chavez is winning people's hearts and minds in Venezuela without

having to resort to the full force of the law?

And he didn't seize stations (or even "station") -- they didn't renew the license. The station is still broadcasting on cable and satellite, and you can visit their website too.

[MonkeyFunk]

87. stop spreading that lie

the government seized the broadcast assets. You were shown that yesterday.

Who gives a fuck about their website and satellite stuff? It's virtually meaningless. The vast majority of their audience was through broacast.

You're embarrassing yourself by repeating these lies after you've been shown the truth.

[1932]

114. See post 111.

I'll interpret the nastiness as cover for not having facts to support your argument.

[rinsd]

26. I think it does when looking at the trend

This station was involved in the coup but instead of prosecuting those people running it, the station is seized some 5 years later and turned into a state run channel.


"The people of Valenzuela are more po'd because that station produces their soap operas and their version of American idol"

I knew Fernando had grown large over the years but I have no idea he had become his own country ;-)

I don't blame them. Part of the reasoning for revoking the license was accusations of unsavory sexual material.

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez vigorously defended on Tuesday his decision to close a television station that openly opposed his government, and ridiculed demonstrators who protested the move.
Lashing out at the “capitalist” values broadcast by Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), which was shut down on Sunday, Chavez claimed that demonstrations of support for the network aimed to destabilise the country.

“Sound the alarm in the hills, neighbourhoods and towns to defend our revolution from this new fascist attack,” Chavez said in a televised broadcast. "

But Chavez stood firm and blasted the student protests. “They are young, but they look like old people defending carrion, the stateless oligarchy,” he said.

He portrayed the closure of RCTV as a public service, claiming the network’s broadcasts amounted to a “permanent attack on public morals” with soap operas that were like “venomous rattlesnakes” and children’s cartoons that were “poisoned with hatred, violence and even sex.”

[AtomicKitten]

32. it was most definitely a ham-handed move

Of course Americans being more litigious immediately wonder why the station owners and managers weren't simply prosecuted, but rather than exercising that option Chavez is trending into a fascist state trying to effectuate morality. His Achilles heel in this less than smooth move is the fact that the station also produces the soaps and their version of AI, the pablum of the masses.

[rinsd]

29. Hey AK, here's a Democracy Now interviews session

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1412206

[endarkenment]

28. Stick with touting your candidate.

Your concern for freedom in venezuela is very touching.

[ronnykmarshall]

33. Howwww niiicccccce!

[endarkenment]

34. And further I note that OP appears to have tossed a grenade.

I love it when the OP issues a missive intended to cause an uproar and then retires to the sidelines to watch the action. A while back somebody posted a link to a set of poster archetypes that was an hysterical (and painful) read. The grenade launcher is one of them.

[ronnykmarshall]

35. mmmmmmmmmm how niiiiccccceeeeee!

[SaveElmer]

37. Don't want to disappoint....

[rinsd]

38. Dude....you left the pin in!

:evilgrin:

[endarkenment]

39. That is always a mistake.

On the other hand it is better than throwing the pin and keeping the grenade.

[rinsd]

40. LOL!

[SaveElmer]

41. Yeah...that's called marriage..!!!

nt

[Forkboy]

42. LOL...where's a rimshot when you need one?

[burrowowl]

51. I am leery of the HRW

they don't come down on the U$ enough.
Ummh! I wonder?

[onenote]

52. really? How do you define enough

Here's five weeks worth of HRW comments on US policies.

http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa&document_limit=20,20

[burrowowl]

58. They didn't come out against Ray-Gun

and Guatemala very strongly/

[rinsd]

90. Considering it reached its current form in 1988, I am not surprised.

But keep grasping at straws that an international human rights organization that spares no one from criticism is somehow not to be trusted.

[Larkspur]

57. I guess Human Rights Watch supports coups against legally elected governments

Chavez is attacking the media outlet that supported the coup against him. This media outlet doesn't just criticize Chavez, it cheerleaded the coup participants in overthrowing a legally elected democratic government.

[SaveElmer]

61. Why did Chavez wait 5 years before punishing those involved...

Why no prosecutions?

And why is he turning it into a state run media outlet instead of to another civilian organization...

[killbotfactory]

64. It's being turned into a PBS like station

No prosecutions because the first people they tried to convict were able to walk, since the Supreme Court said that no coup had taken place. By the time decision had been overturned, the people accused had fled the country. Probably living the high life in Miami.

PR wise it is better to just shut them down by not renewing their license, than it is to start arresting people in powerful news organizations.

[The Magistrate]

66. Timing Is Everything, Sir

Doubtless prior to now he did not feel the time was ripe for the action. It is not as if there is a statute of limitations on the crime of taking up arms against a government that remains in power sfter you have tried to overthrow it....

[Larkspur]

80. Because it was easier to let their license expire

That's all this is about -- renewing a license to use Venezuela's public air waves. Chavez is not shutting them down, Stalinist style. His government is just not renewing the station's license to broadcast. The Venezuelan government has a right to do that, just like our government does to our stations.

[sabbat hunter]

85. but he also

had the government take over the frequency and have the government run it directly, deciding what can and cannot be on the station.

if bush did this there would be an outcry, but because it is Chavez people seem to be happy.

[MonkeyFunk]

86. Cheerleading isn't a crime

maybe that's why nobody at RCTV was ever charged with a crime.

And Chavez himself did more than cheerlead a coup against a democraticaly elected President - he led one.

[The Magistrate]

89. In Time Of War And Revolution It Certainly Is, Sir

And gnerally is punished sternly.

Col. Chavez indeed once attempted a coup, and did some time in jail over it, too, if recollection serves....

[MonkeyFunk]

92. Yes

he was charged, tried and convicted, unlike anybody at RCTV.

Free media and due process appear to be not very highly valued in Venezuela's democracy.

[killbotfactory]

97. No one was charge in a court of law, that's why they are not in jail.

I'm sure the lead prosecutor getting assassinated and all the main players fleeing the country doesn't help the cause of justice, either.

Their obvious complicity in the coup is a pretty good reason to not renew their license.

"Free media and due process appear to be not very highly valued in Venezuela's democracy."

They certainly weren't before Chavez, where only one view was permitted on air. But that's okay, it was just collusion between "private" broadcasters.

[MonkeyFunk]

103. Pay attention

I've never once said they shouldn't have lost their license. You, and others, seem only to be able to argue that, although it's not my position.

My complaint is twofold - the station was seized without due process, and that Democracy is better served by having more independent media, not more government media.

[killbotfactory]

109. This decision went through the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ordered the takeover of the station.

[IndianaGreen]

112. Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction

Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction

by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot

To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.

And in this case it is wrong.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.

<snip>

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1607/

[MaryBear]

113. Hugo Chavez treads a fine line between success and oppression

Hugo Chavez treads a fine line between success and oppression in his effort to survive.

Human Rights Watch is right to be cautious regarding closure of news media outlets.

However, is there not a difference between opposing a government and supporting a coup?

I would think the latter to be treason under the Bushco anti-terrorist laws.

[1932]

115. Oppression?

MYTH: The decision not to renew RCTV’s broadcast license will have a negative impact
on Venezuela’s democracy.

FACT: The majority of Venezuela’s radio and television stations are privately owned. Of
that number, a large part is owned by a small number of corporate groups with multiple
economic and political interests. This has led to a situation in which, according a New York
Times editorial writer, “even the best news outlets tend to be openly ideological and there
is no American-style separation of news and opinion, so the owners’ views can permeate
reporting. Many publications offer only news designed to further the owners’ personal or
political agenda.”5 Similarly, Marta Colomina, a professor of journalism, nationally
syndicated columnist and prominent critic of President Chávez, described the situation as
such: “Media owners are very aware of their power, and know how to use it. In the United
States or Europe, there are big corporate media groups that see themselves serving the
public interest. In Venezuela, media are in the hands of small groups of owners who tend
to serve their own interests.”6

This concentration of ownership has actually limited access to diverse viewpoints, giving
existing media owners a disproportionate amount of power to shape the political and
economic agenda in Venezuela. The decision not to renew RCTV’s broadcast license will
actually have the impact of increasing democracy on Venezuela’s airwaves, both in access
to the airwaves and the material broadcast on them. Though no plans have been finalized,
the Venezuelan Government has announced that a cooperative of independent producers
and journalists will be granted RCTV’s license, which will then be used to promote news,
opinion, culture and entertainment from a variety of different national perspectives.

5
“The Monochromatic Media of Latin America,” New York Times, May 7, 2001.
6
Lugo, Jairo and Juan Romero, “From Friends to Foes: Venezuela’s media goes from consensual space to
confrontational actor,” Sincronía (Winter 2002), http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/lugoromeroinv02.htm.


embavenez-us.org/RCTVFactSheetFinal_2007.pdf

[MaryBear]

116. Anyone facing coups and opposition of the type Chavez deals with treads that line.

My post did not oppose his action regarding license renewal.

It acknowledged that he is in a difficult situation.

And also acknowledged that supporting a coup is treason.

[MaryBear]

117. My apologies to The Magistrate.

I scrolled through this thread and missed your posts, which eloquently and more elaborately stated my point of view. All I need to do was agree with you, Sir. Always enjoy your well reasoned writing.

MB

[The Magistrate]

118. Thank You, Ma'am: No Apology Necessary