Which doesn't take in account two other stations that were coup participants but under threat have adopted a more Chavez friendly slant got their license renewed. A 3rd station is under threat on the flimsiest of basis's.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that Venezuela should deny license renewals to broadcasters who have made an effort to
live up to the terms they agreed to when they sought their their licenses? Are you saying that if Venezuela would do that, you would accept the non-renewal of the RCTV license as fair?
Also missing is that the US did not summarily confiscate Iqbal property and coop his signal to broadcast government propaganda.
Pardon me, but what the hell?
RCTV didn't own the public broadcast spectrum: they were granted the privilege of exclusive use of a portion of the spectrum, subject to review and renewal of their license. The airwaves were never RCTV property in the first place.
A Venezuelan court ruled that the new TV station would have temporary use of the old RCTV broadcast facilities, because the public's immediate need for television service was, in the court's judgement, compelling. There was no "summary confiscation". But I wouldn't be surprised if RCTV eventually lost the rights to at least of some of its property. That's one of the risks you take when you fail to pay your taxes, but never mind: I guess it's probably just more horrific oppression to expect RCTV to pay taxes like everyone else.
As it happens, Mr. Iqbal assets
are subject to forfeiture, and his business is probably pretty thoroughly ruined at this point in any case.
The citing of one case of censorship doesn't not wipe away another. If your point is that anti-Chavez people ignored this case of censorship, well so did Chavistas until it became a convenient example of hypocrisy.
But that's just it: the RCTV action
isn't censorship by any reasonable standard -- not unless the government somehow owes everyone perpetual and immortal broadcast licenses, whether the licensees choose to violate the terms or not. If that's the case, then hell: where's MY broadcast license? Help, help, I'm being repressed!
On the other hand, the actions of the US government in the Iqbal case do look a lot more like blatant censorship. But a careful reader would have noticed that I
haven't actually expressed an opinion on whether any of the actions taken in this matter might be wholly or partly justifiable; I've merely pointed out that they constitute censorship. National security and public safety can be compelling and legitimate rationales for taking actions that may limit free expression in some instances -- regardless of whether the Iqbal case is one of those instances or not.
My point in citing the Iqbal matter is this: Venezuela has the authority (and the duty) to take the security of the Venezuelan state and people every bit as seriously as we take our own security. If it would not be unreasonable for the US to refuse to renew the license of a television network that aided and abetted a coup against our own government -- as well as committed other violations of the licensing terms -- then it's not unreasonable for the Venezuelans to decline to renew the RCTV license, either.
When you can come up with a real case of Venezuela suppressing dissent, then by all means, let's hear it. But until then, the "free speech" faction are simply crying wolf out of purely political motives.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
