Venezuela bans Family Guy cartoon

[demoleft]

Source: bbc

Authorities in Venezuela say they will punish TV stations if they continue to broadcast episodes of cult US animation Family Guy.

Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami says the show should be banned because it promotes the use of marijuana.

He took exception to a recent episode in which one character - Brian, a talking dog - started a campaign to legalise the drug.

Cable stations which refuse to dump the show would be fined, El Aissami said.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8277129.stm

---

well, i do not know the cartoon - but i well imagine how it is one of the first and most serious problems of venezuela. something to take action against on the spot really. the very danger for the venezuelan society...

:)

[monmouth]

1. Hahaha, promotion of legalizing marijuana is the least of its problems.

Should be banned everywhere just for plain stupidity IMO.... If it was funny, I could probably overlook that but I'm sorry. It's just plain dumb...

[demoleft]

2. eheh, i thought it was a dumb cartoon. the simpsons were banned as well, i read. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bette Noir]

12. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

[AlphaCentauri]

10. The opposition must be struggling to spin this one

unless they smoke pot

LOL

[DUlover2909]

11. What is your idea of a dumb show?

Family Guy cracks me up. It rakes in ratings and makes a ton of money. That sounds smart to me. The creators and voice over actors are extremely talented.

[AlbertCat]

20. It's just plain dumb...

Hmmmm...went right over your head , IOW.

[YOY]

3. Oh Hugo...do your wacky antics never cease?

n/t

[bejamin wood]

5. It's pure satire.

Why the hate? But then again, I'm fairly addicted to the show!

[Lucky Luciano]

6. That's It!! Fucking overthrow Chavez now!

That is my favorite show - the only one I watch!

[bertman]

7. Banning teevee shows, unless it is Glenn Beck, is anti-democratic, Hugo. What's up with that?

[Posteritatis]

23. Now, now, if Chavez is doing it that automatically makes it okay! (nt)

[Joanne98]

9. HAHA

[LittleOne]

13. When I went to Puerto La Cruz in the 80's

I was told that I should bring rolling papers with Drum Tobacco so if I was caught with the papers (you got 3 days in jail or something like that for having papers)I could say it was for the tobacco. Hell the concierge had the recreational pharmaceuticals delivered to your room by a waiter. The waiter showed you how to carry and conceal. Oh wait that wasn't weed.

[JonQ]

14. I'm glad hugo is standing up against american cultural imperalism

protecting his people from unclean outside ideas.

He has to keep them in the dark, in order to save them.

[AlphaCentauri]

15. "in the dark" well he should understand how drugs, pornography

help to control and maintain a society numb. He doesn't get it.

[iandhr]

16. are you serious

how can you defend this

[JonQ]

17. No, I'm not serious

I was parodying the chavez-brigade on here, who seem to think hugo can do no wrong and will posit any action of his as necessary to protect Venezuelas independence from a pending american invasion.

[Fearless]

30. True story. In the end he is a politican and does what politicians do.

[The Animator]

18. This just makes me want to watch the episode...

I don't watch TV often but I find Family Guy entertaining. I'm also a big fan of anti-censorship in general.

As antagonistic as Chavez was to Bush, he had a lot of us here on DU cheering him on. However, we need to remember that he is a dictator, and that the enemy of our enemy isn't always necessarily our friend.

[EFerrari]

19. Why are you repeating the RW "dictator" falsehood?

Seriously. And Hugo Chavez did not ban this program. It's Venezuelan law, for Chrissake.

[The Animator]

21. My bad, I just looked him up... clearly I'd been misinformed.

Just goes to show you can't trust anything on TV anymore..

According to Wikipedia he supports a doctrine of participatory democracy...

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (Spanish pronunciation: <ˈuɣo rafaˈel ˈtʃaβes ˈfɾi.as>) (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela. As the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, Chávez promotes a political doctrine of participatory democracy, socialism and Latin American and Caribbean cooperation.<1> He is also a critic of neoliberalism, globalization, and United States foreign policy.<2>

I hate being lied to. It stings even more since I'm fully aware of how misleading our media is and I absorbed it as general knowledge anyway. Makes me wonder how much else is rattling around in my brain that simply isn't true.

[DissedByBush]

37. I take exception with "Bolivarian Revolution"

Simon Bolivar believed in the free market, not socialism.

But Chavez is trying to follow him to become dictator, although Bolivar really only did that out of necessity to save a crumbling nation.

[EFerrari]

48. Repeating the same falsehood over and over doesn't make it more true.

Venezuela has a mixed economy and that's why they did so well when Wall Street tanked the global economy. And Chavez has been re-elected by big margins in clean, monitored elections as Jimmy Carter recently noted.

[DissedByBush]

50. Mixed, heading in a certain direction

Chavez wants control. He is using any excuse he can find to do it. The easy one of course is setting price controls and export restrictions so companies find it hard to make money. Then he can nationalize them when they violate the controls in order to stay in business.

Venezuela rode the recent troubles on the strength of their oil. But Venezuela was hurting before the troubles. Even with record oil prices there was inflation and shortages because of his price controls. I am convinced that the Venezuelan economy would be a basket case right now if Chavez didn't have the oil money to bail him out of his bad economic policies. They were recently trying to get outside investment and partnerships to build up the oil industry, but after having semi-nationalized several companies others are reasonably unsure about making any significant investment in Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

53. You have no idea what "Chavez wants". And Ven just wrote paper

with Russia, France and China so you are also apparently fact-free when it comes to capital investment in Venezuela as well. Where ever you're getting your news from, they are not serving you well.

http://www.oilonline.com/news/digest/single-news-article/?tx_ttnews=77262&cHash=1324db1949

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090922/tbs-uk-venezuela-oil-4210405.html

[EFerrari]

41. We're probably spending millions of dollars to make him look bad in the media.

I hate being lied to, too. Especially by the government and its outlets because they're using my own money to do it. lol

[JonQ]

31. If only there were someone in charge of venezula

who could utilize or repeal these laws to his own advantage.

Of course there isn't, venezuala is a benevolent collective run by popular consent.

[Flanker]

54. It is not Venezuelan law

Cable operators are NOT under the umbrella of media laws, the government is going to corral cable operators (private) under the same laws they apply to OTA channels (public) with nonexistant law to prove a point, Family Guy is a sacrificial lamb.

The real target is RCTV again. Depressing really, now seeking legalization of pot is seen as "dangerous" speech.

[valerief]

22. Banning Family Guy? What, is Venezuela like South Carolina or something?

:shrug:

No offense to liberal South Carolinians.

[Jayberwock]

24. Satire doesn't always translate well.

Was it Family Guy or South Park which had the episode that revolved around that Mohammed was going to make an appearance in the cartoon and the threats and situations surrounding that. Then when they get to it he was blocked or blurred out by the actual network broadcasting the show? Layers of meta that might not be understood in other languages.

I think Dave Barry also wrote about seeing a Japanese stand-up comedian that didn't make a lot of sense when translated.

[Fearless]

29. South Park.

[Xenotime]

25. I admire their ability to control what innocent people see..

If we could do that here with some other on-the-air pundants, we might actually get something done in this country.

[Fearless]

28. Yeah, that pesky 1st Amendment... What we could do without it...

:eyes:

[Xenotime]

42. I guess YOU like listening to Rush and Hannity?

[Fearless]

47. Not a chance buddy.

I just realize that life is a two way street and the sooner we remove the rights of Rush or Hannity the sooner Olbermann or Maddow lose it too.

The 1st Amendment was specifically designed in cases where the speech was unpopular. For if it were popular there would be no need for protections.

[Fearless]

26. Oh I remember that episode well... video included...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGcczxDNKwY&feature=related


I'll bet anything this is what they're talking about.

[Peace Patriot]

27. This is a very poorly written article. It fails to quote the official, so that we know

exactly what he said. It does not discuss the regulation that this official thinks was violated, nor provide any context for judging the official's statements or action. And the article ends with the following sentences: "It (Venezuelan TV) also includes a talk show hosted by the country's president, Hugo Chavez. // New regulations for cable TV in the country could also see cable channels forced to carry Chavez's frequent speeches."

What do new regulations about requiring public interest programming, that "COULD" see a requirement to run the president's speeches, have to do with the Justice Minister's view of a cartoon that he thinks encourages children to be scofflaws?

This odd pairing of issues is arbitrary and prejudicial. And the latter point is speculative (regulations that COULD do something). The BBC is not exempt from the "degrade Hugo campaign" of First World corpo/fascist media. I've heard outrageous bias and outright lies from BBC radio hosts about Chavez and Venezuela.

The item itself--if true (which we can't know without a quotation and the regulatory context)--is, of course, rather silly. It's in the "Entertainment" section of BBC, which perhaps accounts for the very low quality journalism. But it may also be designed to counter Oliver Stone's new documentary on the Bolivarian Revolution in South America, "South of the Border," which is sympathetic to that revolution and has gotten a lot of publicity lately. The BBC came under fierce assault by the Blairites for its independence on Iraq War issues, specifically the Bush/Blair propaganda about WMDs in Iraq. That may be influencing its treatment of yet another First World assault on a Third World oil country. We should be wary of any corpo/fascist-influenced news agency on Chavez/Venezuela/South American leftist issues, even if they are not directly owned by corpo/fascists.

Another missing bit of context is that Venezuela is in the process of creating a better regulatory framework for use of its public airwaves (and cable), along the lines of our former "Fairness Doctrine" including requirements of public service (for the license) and anti-monopoly laws (--all deep-sixed by the Reaganites, here, to our everlasting grief). And I would also imagine that the issue of scofflaw corporate TV would be especially sensitive in Venezuela, since RCTV actively participated in the violent military coup of 2002, and (rightfully) lost its license because of this (among other violations of Venezuela broadcast law). Further, the Chavez government has been viciously and wrongfully accused of promoting drug traffic because it does not go along with the failed, corrupt, murderous US "war on drugs." These are other context issues that could and should be mentioned in regard to this news item. In isolation, banning a cartoon seems silly. With the tag about Chavez's speeches, the article reveals bias and possible ill intent. The lack of context further enforces my suspicion of ill intent.

In summary, the banning of something "to protect children," and the rights, duties and "freedom of speech" parameters of public/government regulation of the airwaves are important issues in any democracy. This item trivializes the issue, and contributes--however subtly--to the corpo/fascist "cartoon" of "Chavez, the dictator." (--speaking of cartoons!) There is insufficient context to judge this item, and that "COULD be" intentional.

I wanted to just say, "Shame on the BBC!" for publishing such crap. But I thought I should explain my reaction to the article. Same old, same old--requiring hours of my time to try to track down the truth.

[ima_sinnic]

36. +! excellent analysis as always (n/t)

[Dogmudgeon]

32. DIE, Yanqui Imperialist Running Animated Dog!

And Jenny Slate should count her F-bombing blessings that she lives in the Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave.

--d!
Long May It Wave

[marshall]

33. Few countries accomodate our level of free speech

China, the Middle East, along with a host of other countries and regions--they balk at the stuff that is on our airwaves.

[YOY]

38. Yeah but try showing a womans breast...childfeeding or otherwise on TV.

Horrors!

[marshall]

40. Or a face?

I remember reading about a woman in another country--newscaster--who was arrested because she showed her uncovered face on television.

Conversely, in the US a breast or even a vagina will get you a PG-13 or possibly an R rating, but a penis (especially an erect one) is an automatic R or NC-17.

[YOY]

43. Yet you can see that and so much more in just about every European Country.

I've seen porn full frontal nudity and the like on public television with nary a warning. I also have seen 15 second of commercials for 30 minutes of TV.

Seriously, comparing us to those who are far worse (like Saudi Arabia) does not make the puritanical BS that is American censorship all better. We celebrate violence and disparage sex. Yet which one would 99% of humanity prefer to do.

Those worse than us have their excuses...they suck the shwanz of religion 24/7. What's ours? That 60 years ago someone decided that a severed head was far more watchable than a woman enjoying intercourse?

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. How ironic. One of the most lefty shows on American TV isn't good enough for Venezuelans

Let's explore. Family Guy is on Fox. Fox is run by Rupert Murdoch. As we all know, anything Murdoch does is pure evil, and he is the devil incarnate.

Family Guy is EXTREMELY left-leaning, yet not only is it on American television, but it's on Fox, which means that Rupert Murdoch (an evil person) and the US Government (under Bush, also evil) approve of it being on American television.

But the show isn't appropriate for that paragon of freedom and individual rights, Venezuela.

Chavez lickspittles, please stow your sanctimony about freedom in Venezuela. Unless by freedom you mean the freedom to watch Hugo TV for another half hour, now that Family Guy is booted off the air.

[spanza]

56. maybe now

the americans will understand that Chavez is not a liberal AT ALL.
Hugo is in our TV ALL the damn time... besides his program, he confiscates all the TV signals to speak for 7-8 hours and it's not once in a while.
We don't want the Father of the Nation-Commander in Chief crap anymore!!! Megalomaniac!!!

[ButterflyBlood]

35. Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party:

an elephant, and a fat white man who's threatened by change.

Idiots for banning that show.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I'm so jealous. Americans care so deeply about what crap Venezuelans are allowed to watch n/t

[martymar64]

44. Too bad, Family Guy is a great show

It's certainly the best thing on American Television. The rest of American TV is frankly, crap.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I think it's bland and repetitive crap...

It's just got none of the creativity and spark that South Park has...

[martymar64]

49. South Park is OK, the writing is good (sometimes) but the animation stinks

South Park turns me off with its preachiness at times. Family Guy is more about having fun than trying to cram a message down somebody's throat. Also, I'm not crazy about Parker and Stone's animation. It's too Hanna-Barbera for me. I just think the Family Guy animation is more professional. I find the characters more likable as well, they lack the malice found in the South Park characters, whom I find totally unsympathetic. When I want mean, I watch Metalocalypse.
My current cartoon favorite is the new Rob Zombie outing, The Haunted World of El Superbeasto.
It's great fun and I heartily recommend it.

But as far as cartoons go, there's enough room for all of them.

[pinniped]

46. I saw that episode. Brian changed his tune at the end and the mayor re-illegalized it.

Family Guy is FN hilarious.

[UTUSN]

51. K&R to UNDO the inevitable Huguito SQUADS of UnReKKKing, but,alas, to NO AVAIL!1 n/t

[w4rma]

52. Looks like the puritanicals are taking over down there. (nt)

[catbert836]

55. no, it's not banned

The original article that the BBC seems to be quoting is here:

http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/a87046.html

Translation follows:

Marijuana, cynicism and cartoons

Just as in the United States, the general use of marijuana in Venezuela is illegal. The website of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) classifies it as a controlled substance, in the same category as heroin or LSD. So, how does one justify that cartoons transmitted from the United States and imported on the cables of this country openly promote its consumption? The minister Tarek El Assaimi, after presenting the video of the episode “A bag of weed” from the animated series “Family Guy”, stated that at least a third of the American population are consumers of some kind of prohibited substance.

Beginning from the fact that one out of three Americans take drugs, one can understand the extensive “cultural movement” that exists in that country for the legalization of marijuana. Since in whatever form millions of people have access to drugs, why not legalize it? In March of this year, President Barack Obama responded negatively to the possibility of collecting taxes on the sale of marijuana to help solve the economic recession. So, in spite of the constant promotion of marijuana consumption that according to the American newspaper the Los Angeles Times occurs in the television series Family Guy, The Simpsons, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood and Desperate Housewives (all broadcast in Venezuela), marijuana remains illegal in the United States. If it is to do with cynicism or the defense of hidden economic interests, it is only a problem for the United States. However, should the Venezuelan people be receiving by cable messages like “everything is better with a bag of weed”?

We know that we find ourselves between the largest producer and the largest consumer* of drugs on the Earth. This geographical coincidence has political implications that have recently pointed toward interventionism. Venezuela is classified- each time with higher frequency- as a “drug state” for its means of communication that defend the Bolivarian Revolution. This begins from questionable information presented by the US Department of State since the sovereign decision of the government of President Chávez to not allow DEA intervention in Venezuela. Sovereign decisions like that should include vigilance toward messages emitted by cable television, particularly if they occur during hours that children may be watching.

Perhaps the most emblematic case of this is that of the series Weeds, broadcast in Venezuela by the channel A&E, one of the primary cable channels of the country. On the synopsis of the web page of this channel one can read: “The life of Nancy Botwin was so perfect: a clean house, two children and a husband… who died, leaving her in economic difficulties that made her to begin to sell to her upright neighbors… ahem… marijuana. Will the life of her neighborhood remain so idyllic forever?” Is it necessary to enlarge the review of programs broadcast indiscriminately to the Venezuelan people?

Even though the Law on Social Responsibility** does not provide for this necessary regulation of cable and satellite TV, those channels should not be able to push around the Constitution, much less when the control of drug trafficking represents for the United States a perfect excuse to intervene in our country. “What immorality and cynicism!” declared El Aissami this Tuesday. Cynicism in cartoons: we saw it on April 12th, 2002, when they were broadcast to censor what was occurring on the streets***; today we see it in the cultural products of a country that according to our Minister of the Interior “supports its economy with between 2.5 and 3 billion dollars yearly from products of the drug trade”.

* Columbia and the United States respectively, I'm guessing.
** Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_on_Social_Responsibility_on_Radio_and_Television
*** Date of attempted coup against Chávez, when TV channels broadcast cartoons instead of news of the street action against the coup to lend it support.

A similar thing happened with The Simpsons in Venezuela a few years back. The Venezuelan government asked a TV station to not broadcast it in the mornings, since children could be watching. So the station temporarily pulled it and then announced that "The Simpsons is banned in Venezuela" to score points on Chávez. Later they resumed broadcasting it at a later hour, after the hubbub had died down and US media outlets stopped paying attention.

I think that a similar script is being replayed here. People who consider themselves left-wing, however, shouldn't be so quick to believe everything thrown at a government that occasionally stands up to US power in Latin America.

[ki83760]

57. That's strange