DUers vote 131-to-1 against censorship, but Chavez is /for/ it!

[LoZoccolo]

I just wanted to perform a brief sanity check yesterday evening, to make sure we're all on the same page about criticizing the president, so I took this poll that found that 131 to 1, that the media should be "legally allowed to offend or disrespect the president".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1023937&mesg_id=1023937

OK then.

If you go to article 147 of the Venezuelan penal code, you'll find that Chavez is against people performing such actions:

Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.

And...

the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html

You can't even disrespect him in private!

:wow:

Apologists...start your engines...we wanna hear what you have to say about this one...and whether or not we can trust you to protect our rights ever... :popcorn:

[mike_c]

1. ding ding ding!

What took you so long to post this drivel?

[slipslidingaway]

64. "the DUer is going to extrapolate this information to disapproval...

...of Hugo Chavez.

Oops, was that supposed to be a secret?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1023937&mesg_id=1024238

:toast:

[sanskritwarrior]

2. Bravo sir.......or maam.........well done

I look forward to the sputtering rants that will follow. Or people will ignore this thread.

I applaud you.......

[rockymountaindem]

3. I don't like the popcorn guy, but I can't resist

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[papau]

23. no butter please :-) -Does anyone care that the Courts have limited the interpretation of these laws

desacato (disrespect) laws have been around for a long time - in 2004 there was a "new penal code", again in 2005, and again in 2006 - and there are indeed increased penalties for desacato, criminal defamation, and libel.

But the Courts have ruled opinion pieces in newspapers that slam Chavez actions do not violate those laws.

Appears you can say "that was a dumb ass move",

but you can't say "you are a dumb ass"

[Codeine]

26. A very fine distinction,

so fine as to be meaningless. I'd not relish giving up my right to say "Bush/Cheney/Leiberman/etc are dumbasses," would you?

[papau]

60. I don't like making being polite a law - but it is not as bad as folks are posting, is it? :-) n/t

n/t

[Codeine]

67. So,

you'd be fine if Bush and the BFEE Boys created a similar restriction in our own country?

[papau]

70. No - but it is not quite a silencing of the media. The U.S. Sedition Act and Espionage Act sucked.

but we continued as a democracy.

[Codeine]

73. Fair enough. nt

[Cleita]

4. Isn't that what Fox News tells us about criticizing Bush?

Must not criticize the war President because if we criticize him here, they will criticize him over there. (Uhm making a joke with paraphrasing for those who take these posts literally.)

[papau]

30. Indeed Chavez is less socialist and more businessman than I would wish - but he is a great

improvement over what our CIA would install.

If Chavez lived in the US he might well be a compassionate conservative watching Fox! :-)

[DireStrike]

5. you might wanna link to that poll nt

[sanskritwarrior]

6. Indeed link it

and watch the Chavezistas slink away

[LoZoccolo]

8. Sorry! It's there now. n/t

[Codeine]

7. Viva Zoccolo!

:evilgrin:

[sanskritwarrior]

10. Viva Zoccolo...........

:patriot:

[LoZoccolo]

16. Heh heh...self-delete...second thoughts about this one.

I offered a comparison of Bolivarianism vs. USA constitutional rights in terms some people might not be happy with...

[Kagemusha]

9. So is this a new law or an old law?

It's relevant and I genuinely don't know. Thank you.

[LoZoccolo]

11. It was passed around March 2005. n/t

[papau]

29. Old and new law which is limited by Court interpretation - saying Chavez screwed up is OK, but

saying Chavez is a screw up is not -

or at least that is how I read the Courts decision allowing critical of Chavez actions editorials to continue.

[LoZoccolo]

33. "Screwed up"??!!

Screwing up is like, when you design some program to fix _____ problem and it doesn't fix it, or creates some other problem. Blatently criminalizing dissent is not "screwing up"!

[Kagemusha]

47. ...The meaning you cite is a third meaning, not one of the 2 cited by the other poster

just FYI. And thank you for the initial reply. I now know that the current form exists because of action taken under Chavez. And I don't think that stuff's cool.

Though neither do I think calling openly for coups is cool in general.

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. that's because your question was loaded

what did you expect?

Ask how many people think a station that actively encourages a coup and intentionally misleads the public at a critical time should retain their license.

[sanskritwarrior]

13. Sour Grapes.......

:D

[LoZoccolo]

17. But this isn't aboooout the coup!

This is about the Venezuelan penal code.

[Clovis Sangrail]

35. ah

For some reason I thought you were trotting out this poll and piece of legal code in order to convince people that Chavez was really the bad guy for not renewing RCTVs license.... my mistake.
:sarcasm:


Venezuela has fucked up laws.
So do we.
Go read the entire Patriot Act... or the entire Real ID Act.. or any of a slew of other pieces of legislation that have passed in the last 6 years.


Do you have link to Venezuela's Penal code?
I'd be interested in reading it.
(I prefer not to trust columns that don't provide sources... sorry)

[OilemFirchen]

37. Me too.

I'd especially like to see the Penal Code as presented by the Venezuelan government, in Spanish or officially translated into English. And I'd really like to see the previous Article 147.

[LoZoccolo]

43. Heres you go.

http://infovenezuela.org/attachments-spanish/T4%20ST02%20N1%20C%F3digo%20Penal.pdf

[OilemFirchen]

49. Uh, no.

The current Penal Code, from the Venezuelan Government, not some undated, suspect link to Aleksander Boyd's forgettable site.

[Clovis Sangrail]

53. lol thanks for pointing that out

[LoZoccolo]

56. Go find one that suits you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22irrespetare+al+Presidente+de+la+Rep%C3%BAblica%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Clovis Sangrail]

51. thanks

[LoZoccolo]

42. Venezuelan penal code, coming right up!

http://infovenezuela.org/attachments-spanish/T4%20ST02%20N1%20C%F3digo%20Penal.pdf

[Codeine]

22. Not really.

The question we're dealing with now has fuck-all to do with the coup (either of them, the Chavez coup or the anti-Chavez coup) but instead deals with the Venezuelan law criminalizing insulting speech against the President of that country.

[Clovis Sangrail]

36. no... it does

virtually all of the current conversations about Chavez, at least in this country (and even on DU), are in the context of his not renewing RCTV's license.
I'm not saying there can't be discussions about Venezuela that have nothing to do with Chavez and RCTV... just that most do.

This thread, and the poll that it references, seem pretty clearly designed to influence peoples' opinions regarding that subject.

I am curious, though, to read about the changes in the Venezuelan penal code described by the article.

[TahitiNut]

34. Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is sedition in any country I know of.

... including the U.S. In many countries (our "allies"), it's punishable by death. I find the advocacy for the entitlements of corporations above the rights of a people to political self-determination somewhat disturbing.

In the U.S., mere membership in an organization that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence has landed many in prison. While the SCOTUS curbed the over-reaching enforcement in 1957, it continues to be a federal felony to actively participate in or vocally support insurrection.

I haven't heard ... besides merely refusing to renew a license to broadcast, has anyone at the TV station been prosecuted? Imprisoned? No? Sounds like a pretty fair treatment to me.
:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

39. I have another thread that I posted about the TV station.

Maybe you reply would fit a little bit better there! This one is about the Venezuelan penal code, which prohibits dissent in vague terms.

[TahitiNut]

50. Yeah ... they're so tough on 'dissent' that the rumors about 50,000 protesters ...

... are OBVIOUSLY falsified, right? (Sheesh!) :eyes:

[Jackpine Radical]

14. OK--Chavez is wrong.

I think censorship is a great evil.

But how far behind him are we? The major difference is that here, the Pretzelking hasn't had to threaten the press to get them to do what he wants. The Head Wacko, the rich, and the Press are all on the same side. No need for overt censorship.

Down there, you got the rich & their lapdog press on one side, Chavez on the other. Our corporate lapdog press likes our Idiot in Chief. The Venezuelan corporate lapdog press despises Chavez. Chavez instituted laws to rein in the press and Bush didn't. Wow, go figure.

I suspect that in a hypothetical ideal world with a fair press, Chavez would oppose censorship and Bush would demand it.

[gatorboy]

15. How come Chevez gets more attention here than Darfur?

Lately every other thread here is Hugo-eriffic.

[IndyOp]

19. Chavez is hopeful. Darfur horrifying. That's my guess. (n/t)

[originalpckelly]

20. How many people on DU are in support of the Darfur genocide?

That might be the reason more people are taking this so seriously, they support Chavez, they're not against him and his undemocratic bullshit. I have said it a number of times in these threads that I worry some of these very same people would support a carbon copy of Chavez in America.

[Codeine]

24. Because about half of DU loves Chavez

and half of us don't, so it's a fertile ground for disagreement and argument.

OTOH, nobody on DU supports the bloodshed and genocide in Darfur, so it would be a very quiet thread with lots of agreement. That, and it's a miserable topic that we can't do anything about.

[MonkeyFunk]

96. because

there isn't a DU contingent that will defend any and all actions that occur in Darfur.

Now if Chavez were in charge there....

[sniffa]

137. how about the OP ignores this post

[AZBlue]

145. EXCELLENT question.

And, why don't we see much here on Darfur?? It should be a daily topic, but no.

I think partly it's because we are all against what's going on in Darfur and therefore there's nothing to argue over. Seems many here just come to argue and stick only to the inflamatory topics for that reason.

[originalpckelly]

18. It's a personality cult.

Plain and simple, and what's weird is how much it bears resemblance to a regular cult.

The only true way to stop it is to tell the truth, ask questions and have a real democratic debate.

[Enrique]

21. more important, what do the Venezuelan people think of him?

i wish there was some way to know what they think of Chavez. Some kind of vote or something.

[Nunyabiz]

25. So what?

Chavez is like Mr. Rogers compared to Mein Chimpfuhrer.
We need a media that will tell the damn truth.

[Cameron27]

27. LoZoccolo, your poll was actually

132 to 0! I hit the wrong answer by mistake, and couldn't correct. :+

[LoZoccolo]

28. Ha, thanks for letting me know!

I was trying to guess who that might have been.

[DireStrike]

31. Yah, Chavez/VZ law is definitely wrong here.

However, that doesn't mean the TV station(s) deserves to stay in operation.

[DRoseDARs]

32. But but but Chavez sh*ts chocolate! How can anyone criticize a man who sh*ts chocolate?!

I just don't understand this Chavez fetish some DU'ers have. :shrug:

[ellisonz]

40. It's the uniform...

...and the lip service to socialism and indigenous rights.

[Codeine]

41. It's really good chocolate, though.

Smooth, low in fat, high in anti-oxidants, and naturally sugar-free. Chocolate de Chavez, The Dictadors Favorite!

[ellisonz]

38. My informal Chavez approval poll currently stands 87-70-5 in favor.

[Bonobo]

44. Holy Joe worshippers have no credibility in my book, sorry.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I'm not going to let you hijack this thread. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

83. now that's an interesting tidbit!

I knew there was something I was forgetting that had left a sour taste in my mouth ...
thanks for the reminder; explains a lot . . .

[OilemFirchen]

46. What's the current law?

Venezuela’s Attorney General Mounts Legal Challenge to Controversial Penal Code

Caracas, Venezuela, November 23, 2005—Venezuela’s Attorney General, Isaias Rodríguez, filed an exhaustive challenge yesterday in the country’s Supreme Court, to a recent controversial reform of the country’s penal code.

...

When the law was first approved, last January, it was rejected by President Chavez for being too draconian in many parts.

...

One of the most controversial measures involves the defamation and insult of public officials, where the National Assembly slightly toughened punishments, extending maximum prison sentences from 30 to 48 months and introduced stiff monetary fines. Human Rights Watch, opposition leaders, and the U.S. State Department continue to present this aspect of the penal code reform as proof of Chavez’s intent to stifle free speech, even though none of its provisions was ever applied before or since the reform.

(Emphasis mine.)

[LoZoccolo]

48. 6 to 30 months.

The rejected one was up to 48 months.

[OilemFirchen]

52. Sez who?

Not that I'm doubting you, I simply haven't seen any authoritative link to the current law.

Curiously, when Googling Article 147, I get a dizzying mobius strip of links back to either the article in your OP, or Aleksander Boyd's site. Nothing else.

[LoZoccolo]

54. Here's the penal code in the original Spanish.

http://infovenezuela.org/attachments-spanish/T4%20ST02%20N1%20C%F3digo%20Penal.pdf

[papau]

75. US has a version&That is 2005 version - but it has the same laws we are discussing- which points

out the "new penal code" mantra is a lie via being the usual GOP partial truth. I guess the goal was to get those checking this out to not catch how it has been modified/interpreted by the Courts.

In any case below is the code you cited - and in the 2006 version there is an Article 173, individuals face three years' imprisonment for defaming public officials with no limits on fines, and Article 176 which doubles the term of imprisonment, from one year to two, where the defamation was committed through the media. Where the defamation is both through the media and committed against individuals performing "public, religious or political duties," the term of imprisonment is increased to three years. In the 2004 version I believe it was Article 147


The code the law you referenced:

Artículo 158. Cualquiera que por acto de menosprecio a una potencia extranjera, arrebate, rompa o destruya la bandera o cualquier otro emblema de dicha nación, será castigado con arresto en fortaleza o cárcel política por tiempo de uno a seis meses. El enjuiciamiento no se hará lugar sino a instancia del Gobierno extranjero.


Artículo 210. El ministro de cualquier culto que prevaliéndose de su carácter, excite al menosprecio y desobediencia de las instituciones, leyes o disposiciones de la autoridad, o de los deberes inherentes a un oficio público, será castigado con arresto en fortaleza o cárcel política por tiempo de cuarenta y cinco días a un año. Si el hecho se hubiere cometido públicamente, el arresto podrá imponerse hasta por dos años.
Con las mismas penas se castigará al ministro de cualquier culto que, prevaliéndose de su carácter, constriña, induzca o persuada a alguna persona a efectuar actos o a hacer
declaraciones contrarias a las leyes en perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos en virtud de éstas.

AND OF COURSE WE HAVE OUR OWN VERSION IN THE USA:

Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 871, “Threats Against the President or his Successors” provides for up to five years of prison for any kind of “threat” against a U.S. President, Vice-President, his spouse or any one in the succession line who could become President, which includes a grand portion of Congress. Section 871 has been used to jail individuals for telling a U.S. President he “sucks”<17>, informing a President that, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President”<18> or for wearing “anti-war” or “anti-Bush” t-shirts.<19> And lest we forget the more than 1800 protesters jailed during the August 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City for the crime of…protesting the president."

[Forkboy]

55. My poll was more accurately phrased than yours,but too controversial for DU.

Should the US media be allowed to call for a VIOLENT overthrow of the government?

When my poll got locked about 65% said no.All you asked was should they be allowed to "criticize" the government,a much kindler,gentler way to put things,and one that generated the very answer you hoped to illicit so you could then launch into another ill thought out point.

I don't expect to acknowledge that little tidbit in your self appointed crusade for freedom. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

57. My poll is not about that.

The wording from my poll comes from a translation of the Venezuelan penal code.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. No doubt the tyrannized Venezuelan electorate will vote out the "dictator"..

Won't they?

[Forkboy]

59. These people are clearly oppressed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. They're probably all on Fidel's payroll and taking orders from the Kremlin.

Oh, wait, that was the civil rights and anti-war people in America that were on the Cuban payroll and taking orders from the Kremlin...it's all so confusing when dealing with unAmerican commies who hate 'Murka.

[Crunchy Frog]

77. Being forced to wear body paint and red hats.

Oh the humanity!

[slipslidingaway]

61. TWO minutes on google

"An article by Jackson Diehl, “Chávez’s Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail” (Washington Post, Monday, March 28, 2005, p.A17), attempts to convince readers that a reformed Penal Code in Venezuela is somehow a repressive tool of an authoritarian regime. Diehl references Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light."

Yet this journalist fails to mention U.S. laws on the same subject matter, which are actually much stricter and truly repressive. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 871, “Threats Against the President or his Successors” provides for up to five years of prison for any kind of “threat” against a U.S. President, Vice-President, his spouse or any one in the succession line who could become President, which includes a grand portion of Congress. Section 871 has been used to jail individuals for telling a U.S. President he “sucks”<17>, informing a President that, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President”<18> or for wearing “anti-war” or “anti-Bush” t-shirts.<19> And lest we forget the more than 1800 protestors jailed during the August 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City for the crime of…protesting the president."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1409

[LoZoccolo]

63. That's pretty lame.

And two wrongs wouldn't make a right anyways.

[slipslidingaway]

68. How many laws are never enforced? How many people are in

jail because of article 147, they could jail tens of thousands from today's protest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv


Do they have any resources that we do not want to lose control of?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1022812

[originalpckelly]

118. What kind of bullshit is that? Excuse me, but 871 doesn't say you can...

throw people in prison for saying those things:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

It may have been abused to do that, but that's not what the law actually says, and if someone wouldn't abuse it, it would be a just law. I cannot say the same for a law that forbids criticism of a leader, even civil criticism.

[angstlessk]

65. I don't post often but I do post when I am pissed..and this thread

is nothing more than an anti socialist thread...the DLC and the RNC hate Chavez...he is doing what he can for his countrymen..I have no argument with that...only with those who hate him for using his country's natural resources for the people...vs the elite.

Who are you LoZoccolo..I thought you had a son in the Iraq war?? and he was killed..am I wrong?

[LoZoccolo]

66. I do not even have a son.

And I wouldn't know what criticizing a leader for curtailing dissent would have to do with a war in a separate country.

Would you like to comment on article 147 of the Venezuelan penal code?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Vidar]

98. Well said. Viva Chavez!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. You Rock LoZoccolo! What An Absolute Scumbag Dictator He Is. People Will Wake Up Soon Enough.

But great thread!

:applause:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[ima_sinnic]

93. what you said ...

the obtuse vehemence is astounding ...

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. My Opinion? No Genius, It Doesn't. It Has To Do With HIM.

And I'm of the opinion that he's a piece of shit manipulative free speech squelching power hungry dictator. I don't give a rats ass who is or isn't trying to undermine him as that has nothing to do with my opinion of the scumbag.

[Webster Green]

127. More of your Pat Robertson quotes?..

Wow!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Yes. In Fact, Pat Robertson Is Right Here With Me. Wanna Say Hi?

"Hi webster green! Pat Robertson here. I notice you're not being very nice or mature. But nice to meet you anyway! Hey, are you being a gooooood christian? Good webster. Glad to hear it. Listen, I'm gonna give it back to OMC now ok? If you need me for anything else let me know! Oh yeah, don't forget, chavez is a piece of shit scumbag okay?"

Ok webster. Since you are failing to do anything else but taunt and act childish, I'm gonna let ya go know. Me and pat are gonna go upstairs and have a beer. Nite! :hi:

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

71. When did everyone become so concerned about the level of freedom in Venezuela?

Did it used to be a shining beacon of democracy before Chavez came to power? I've never been under the impression that Latin America was a hotbed of freedom and human rights. Is there any particular reason I should be alarmed all of a sudden? :shrug:

My own country is so fucked up right now that I don't really feel it's my place to be pointing the finger in judgement at the problems in other people's countries.

[Codeine]

74. It's only an issue

because the Chavez Fan Club and Bully Boy Orchestra keeps lionizing him.

[Cerridwen]

72. Yes - since 1964, articulo 148 has been a part of the Venezuelan

Criminal Code (note: this is a .pdf file)

Art. 148. El que ofendiere de palabra o por escrito, o de cualquiera otra manera irrespetare al
24 Presidente de la República o a quien esté haciendo sus veces. será castigado con prisión de
seis a treinta meses. si la ofensa fuere grave, y con la mitad de esta pena. si fuere leve.

La pena se aumentará en una tercera parte si la ofensa se hubiere hecho públicamente.

Si la ofensa fuere contra el Presidente de alguna de las Cámaras Legislativas o el Presidente
de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, la pena será de cuatro meses a dos años, cuando la ofensa
fuere grave y con la mitad de esta pena, cuando fuere leve.

Art. 149. Cuando los hechos especificados en el artículo precedente se efectuaren contra el
Gobernador de alguno de los Estados de la Unión, o contra los Ministros del Despacho,
Secretario General del Presidente de la República, Gobernadores del Distrito Federal o de los
Territorios Federales, los Vocales de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. los Presidentes de las
Legislaturas de los Estados y los Jueces Superiores, o contra la persona que esté haciendo
sus veces, la pena indicada en dicho artículo se reducirá a su mitad. y a su tercera parte si se
trata de Presidentes de Concejos Municipales, Prefectos de Departamentos del Distrito Federal
o Jefes Civiles de Distrito.

Art. 150. Cualquiera que vilipendiare públicamente al Congreso. a las Cámaras Legislativas
Nacionales, a la Corte Suprema de Justicia o al Gabinete o Consejo de Ministros, así como a
alguna de las Legislaturas o Asambleas Legislativas de los Estados de la Unión o a algunos de
los Tribunales Superiores, será castigado con prisión de quince días a diez meses.

En la mitad de dicha pena incurrirán los que cometieren los hechos a que se refiere este
artículo, con respecto a los Concejos Municipales.

La pena se aumentará proporcionalmente en la mitad, si la ofensa se hubiere cometido
hallándose las expresadas Corporaciones en ejercicio de sus funciones oficiales.

Art. 151. Corresponde a los Tribunales de Justicia determinar sobre la gravedad o lenidad de
las ofensas a que se refieren los artículos 148, 149 y 150.

Perhaps you think Chavez should have gone in and removed this piece of legislation from the books rather than "allowing" it to pass - yet again. That would have been rather, hmm, what's the word, ah yes, dictatorial of him, would it not? Hmm, maybe he could have just done a signing statement.

Do you always believe what you read in the WaPo, or only that which supports your, erm, beliefs? They couldn't even get the article number of the code correct. Do you think they were "Fair and Balanced" in how they presented the way in which this law came into being; especially since it's been on the books since 1964? Especially since desacato laws have a long history in South American countries; not just Venezuela.

I'm not sure how I feel about Chavez. I do know some of the programs he's implementing appear to be beneficial to more of his people than the programs implemented by his predecessors. I do know that corporate media in the U.S. can't be trusted. I also know there are many who would lose big bucks if many of Chavez's socialist policies were to become wide-spread. I'll continue to approach any reporting by the corporate media, or those who would use their questionable "reporting" to support their arguments, with a jaundiced eye.

edit: formating

[slipslidingaway]

78. Thank you for this correction and your reply. n/t

[Cerridwen]

84. You're welcome.

As I said, I'm not sure about Chavez. But, dammit! If you think socialism is bad, stick to that schtick. If you think the U.S. is innocent in Venezuela, have the huevos to say so. Quit cherry-picking the "facts" to fit the freaking argument.

Oopsie, sorry - not ranting at you. :hi:

Just a general rant.

[slipslidingaway]

99. I'm not sure about Chavez either in the long term, but the

administration and media's incomplete/ distorted view should be brought to light.

Please continue to rant.

:hi:

[Forkboy]

111. I have my reservations about all of this too.

I'm too tired to write out what I feel about this again,so I'll just repost something I wrote yesterday when I was awake:

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.

[Cerridwen]

126. :D

I soooo, understand about not wanting to re-type the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.

Cut and paste, is our friend.

It's not our country, it's not our legal system, it's not our president. I hope Venezuelans have a good life. I hope the U.S, for once, stays the hell out of another country's politics.

I hope...and hope...and hope.

Then I copy and paste.

:D

edit: typo

[Crunchy Frog]

79. So that fiend Chavez has been repressing the Venezuelan people since 1964?

No wonder people at DU are in a tizzy.

[Cerridwen]

80. Yah, he was 10 - busy little boy wasn't he?

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Cerridwen]

86. Yeah, what's ironic is that the same people who are accusing

Chavez of being a dictator are the same ones who are criticizing him for not removing this article from the criminal code, which if he were to do so, would indeed make him a dictator in fact. That he's practiced cronyism and other questionable means to get his legislation passed is as reprehensible when he does it as it is when our own politicians do it. Maybe we could at least stick to one standard.

/rant in general - not ranting at you. *sigh*

[Forkboy]

88. Nader is off the radar...someone here needs a new boogeyman.

[Cerridwen]

91. Is *that* what this is about? *sigh*

What a freaking waste.

Thanks for the context.

:hi:

[Blue_Tires]

105. exactly nt

[LoZoccolo]

92. Where do you get that it's been there since 1964? n/t

[Cerridwen]

94. From a link with historic information about Venezuelan legislation

Starting at this page which led me to this .pdf doc titled "Código Penal (Publicado el 22 de junio de 1964)".

Also many google links to the topic of desacato laws and their history in South American countries as well as discussion of South American legal systems versus U.S. legal systems; ah, they're different in their enforcement and interpretation. Google English Common Law versus Roman Law or Napoleonic Code for some examples of how U.S. citizens' understanding of our legal system differs from that of our South American counterparts. It's quite enlightening.

[jkg4peace]

132. You should really try to go and check it out for yourself

I think if you were to see it first hand, here him speak with such passion on all the issues we progressives feel so strongly about, see how the people respond, see the hope and empowerment and consciousness of the people -- you would be very impressed. I sure was! He is a passionate, informed progressive activist and definitely one with the people of Venezuela. He is a product of the worldwide people's movement against the neoliberal tyranny. Why is it so hard for Americans to get it? -- when it comes to freedom and justice for the Venezuelan people, HE IS ON THEIR SIDE! And the programs he has implemented -- they are not handouts. The people have to organize among themselves, they get microcredits to do their own thing - they make all the decisions for their own communities. This is the key to their revolution and keeping the power in the hands of the people and keeping it out of the hands of the corporate elite. Unlike in the US, where we hand everything over to a corrupt band of 535 politicians and let the big money interests have their way with them.

[porphyrian]

76. Last I checked, he wasn't an American.

I mean, I hope he's a decent guy to his people, but I frankly don't give a shit, and I don't understand the obsession with the guy. Don't we have enough to worry about right here?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. When should we start the invasion?

I mean this is horrible, this dictatorship. Certainly we should be invading them or at the least pouring millions into covert destabilization programs, right?

[mitchum]

87. why...that's just Delightful Lozoccolo Cheers

[Redstone]

89. Seems to me that DU is about 50-50 in favor of / not in favor of Chavez.

That's a good balance.

Redstone

[IChing]

95. come on my friend it is 65-35

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1003642&mesg_id=1003642

I didn't vote in the poll by the OP cause I knew where it was leading and the agenda he pushes..

[Redstone]

97. OK, thanks for letting me know. I was going by the posts I've read; didn't know there was a poll.

I still think that Chavez is shooting himself in the foot an awful lot and wish he'd stop doing so.

Castro was a pretty good guy at first, too. And look what happened there.

Redstone

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. DU Polls Aren't Exactly Representative. Ya Know That Right?

Especially since chavez supporters are far more likely to vote in that poll then those who really don't care or don't really support him. I'd say if anything more DU'ers probably either don't give a shit about him or don't trust him, but that's just my vibe and due to knowing that there is a lot of intelligent posters on DU that don't make themselves known all of the time. I'd have faith they'd see him for the scumbag he is.

No way to prove the theory, of course, but regardless you still can't use DU polls as any real indicator of where our community stands on issues like this, for the most part.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. Personal Attacks All You Got Bub? How Pathetic.

And unless I somehow invaded a fucking PM, then this OPEN DISCUSSION is able to be replied to by fucking ANYBODY. Got it? Good.

Now I noticed you didn't do anything else other than offer childish personal attack. Shall I take that to mean my points were valid and you were unable to dispute them? :hi:

[IChing]

119. Your point is mute, Redstone asked and I gave him a poll

about how DUers feel about Chavez, which I think is what
DUers have expressed.

NOW give me one you can find that disputes the one I linked.

You do have bipolar tendencies which are revealed in your passive aggressive
addled posts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. Of Course My Point Is Mute. We're On A Message Board. No Volume Pal.

Were you expecting audio? :rofl:

And I'm aware you gave him results of a poll. I pointed out to you and explained that polls like that are not entirely representative of our large community and thereby really can't give any true accurate results, as far as precise percentage breakdowns are concerned.

But are you trying to tell me that you actually think polls like that are an accurate representation? Really? Whoakay pal! :rofl:

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. You Need To Pay Attention.

I take ambien about once every two weeks, cause I like it. I don't take sleeping pills.

But your whole little OMC rant just cracked me up! So silly how some of you posters actually think for a second that you can figure somebody out from a message board. I mean, are you for real? Do you really think so simplistically?

Fact is, I am what I am. I'm like no one you have ever known nor will ever meet again. Don't assume to think for a second that you can comprehend even a miniscule amount of what I'm about or what makes me tick. For doing so would make you the fool.

This is an internet message board. It's all in good fun. The only neurosis I see is from those who are so obsessed with big bad OMC that they just sit and plot just HOW they can knock me down off of some falsely perceived pedestal, as if anyone else really cares. I find it all to be amazingly pathetic and humorous.

Much like your post above. I mean, do you realize how personal and inappropriate it is? How obsessed it is? I'm just an internet poster for god's sake. You actually felt the need to psychoanalyze me? You actually think that doing so based on ones postings on an internet site is information enough to do so? And you think you have a leg to stand on? Not sure I'm the neurotic pal. You need to get over me. :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. It's A Start.

I'm just still amazed that he has such blind support from some here. And the vitriol that's spewed merely because the other 50% of us don't trust, like or respect him is a bit hilarious to keep seeing. It's like a friggin chavez cult or something. How DARE we not like him! :rofl:

[Redstone]

104. I'm a bit disappointed about that fact that, although I've praised him for the good things that he

has done, as soon as I point out that he's acting like an asshole in one case or another, all of a sudden I'm not a Loyal Liberal anymore, or worse, that I'm a Paid Mole, according to some DUers. I got that same treatment for pointing out some time back that calling another world leader "Satan" (even though he may indeed be) at the UN is not a very statesmanlike thing to do.

But I don't care. I'll praise him for doing good stuff, but I still reserve the right to point out when he's stepping on his dick.

Anyone who doesn't like it, doesn't HAVE to like it.

Redstone

[eridani]

109. Chavez didn't get rid of a law that's been on the books since 1964

Too bad--it's a lousy law. But if it was first enacted about the time that Chavez was working on learning the finer points of not peeing in his pants, it's his fault?

You don't have to like the law--I certainly don't--but how about some context?

[Redstone]

110. How about some perspective that I can like some things that a politican does, and not like

some other things that he does?

How about THAT perspective?

Redstone

[IChing]

131. I agree but the way I see it

It really doesn't matter, I find our involvement with Saudi Arabia 10000 worst
and there is not a thread about that.

Chavez is someone I watch with an analytical mind receiving as much information
from both sides of the coin. I like Chavez but worry about power, as we do in the States these days,
and the fascinating corruption that it does. Ultimately, power should be handled
in the Washingtonian or Cincinnatus historical reference. What he does
after the revolution is out of its infancy I await to form a judgement . Right now I see
the revolution as a good thing benefiting the masses without violence.

We shall see.....right now I need to get a 71 year old woman out of jail at Walmart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1030049

If you are interested in Cincinnatus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

[originalpckelly]

121. Excuse me, but if he's really committed to a democratic revolution...

he ought to encourage the legislature to repeal it, and that's taking what you said to be true.

[eridani]

162. And he ought to encourage them to repeal the anti-abortion laws too

But he probably won't, seeing as how Venezuela is socially conservative and Catholic. Furthermore, there are certainly hundreds of other crappy laws that Venezuela has that ought to be repealed too.

What you and the OP call "defending Chavez" is actually pointing out the total horseshit demonization of the man for the purposes of justifying killing him and as many of the poor brown folks living there that we can get by with, using their own economic elite as our agents.

[Cerridwen]

135. And such blind opposition...

but, hey, blind opposition is okay...blind support of something "we" find threatening...not so much.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. You'll See.

You all will see. This will not end well. Mark my words.

And years from now when it's all out in the open and apparent to even the most cultish of his followers, I will not gloat. I will merely continue to feel sorry for them.

[Cerridwen]

143. Except, I'm, by my own words, (see my other posts) not cultish,

but hopeful that a way other than the U.S. way of "Manifest Destiny" and "Spreading Democracy" at the point of a gun, might possibly be successful and pro-survival and pro-humanity.

I have no way of knowing if this will "end well." Or even if it will end.

You go gloat. I'm still staying "told ya so" about how the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that didn't exist, has shown itself to exist. Funny, there's no comfort in it at all. Just ashes. But, hey, you go gloat.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

149. Did You Read Something Wrong?

You repeated for me to go gloat multiple times.

I explicitly said I wouldn't gloat. You must've misread somethin along the way.

I also like how you said 'except I'm not cultish', as if I said you had been. Maybe you should just reread the whole thing.

[Cerridwen]

152. Nope. And twice is "multiple", I'll grant you.

Though "twice" doesn't look nearly as extreme as "multiple", does it?

You said "cultish" as though you implied it was targeted at me; plausible deniability for you? Nah, you wouldn't do that, would you? After reading scores of your posts at DU, I couldn't possibly "read into" anything you said as representing anything other than what you typed. No, not at all. Because you parse words like a republican pundit is no reason for me to respond to them as such. Good point! I shouldn't "misread somthin along the way" when it pertains to your typed words. There is no context for your words. You type in a vacuum. My bad.

I did re-read the whole thing; and I "got" what you were saying; plausible deniability and all. But hey, parse away and deny away. I, and I suspect many others, know what to expect of you now. But, hey, parse away.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. So You Didn't Get It Then. Ok.

And multiple is multiple. You repeated it multiple times. Who cares what word I used? You're just being semantical now.

And I don't know why you were paranoid enough to think that the cultish was referred to you, since it wasn't in any context towards you whatsoever. It was in the context of that even the last of the last holdouts will see as well, after all the previous holdouts already had. They were exceptions. It was just a reference to those who ARE that cultish. If I meant it towards you ya woulda known it, as I woulda been far more direct. Not really sure why you thought the exception part was referencing you, unless subliminally you thought that's where you were? I dunno. But what I do know is you definitely misunderstood it.

Anyway, It's late. Nite!

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

108. It's been around since 1964

Where was your indignation then?

[jkg4peace]

114. Chavez didn't pass that law, the National Assembly did

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1567

Here are snippets:

Caracas, Venezuela, March 31, 2005— According to Venezuela’s Attorney General, Isaias Rodriguez, the recent reform of Venezuela's penal code represented an “excessive increase” in penalties. The recent penal code reform, which was first REJECTED BY PRESIDENT CHAVEZ, was made into law last March 16 and has been a cause of numerous criticisms from both Venezuela’s opposition and from international critics such as Human Rights Watch...

The penal code generally expands penalties for a whole variety of areas, such as “disrespecting” or threatening a public official and for conspiring against the country. Also, it eliminates some rights to due process for those accused of conspiracy against the country.

Attorney General Rodriguez went on to say that the National Assembly IGNORED the President’s recommendations when he sent the law back to the legislature for revisions. According to Venezuela’s constitution, THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT VETO a law, but he may return it to the National Assembly for modifications. If it passes again, with or without amendments, the text becomes the law of the land....

For Rodriguez the penal code seems to have been copied from the United States, where penal control over society is maximized. He reminded that there is no correlation between incarceration rates and the lowering of crime rates. The United States has the highest incarceration rates and also one of the highest crime rates...

The penal code reform had originally passed the National Assembly (AN) last January, but it did not go into effect because Chavez returned it to the AN on February 10, saying that many of its provisions were unconstitutional. The AN made revisions to it, passing it again last week, March 16, whereupon it passed into effect without the president’s signature.

Human Rights Watch and Venezuela’s opposition also have harshly criticized the law, saying that its provisions for punishing “disrespect” would diminish freedom of speech. Lawmakers have pointed out, though, that the disrespect clauses have been on the books for a long time and this has not diminished freedom of speech.

==========

Cut them a little slack -- they finally have the country they were dreaming of and they are damn scared that the assholes who have oppressed them all their fucking lives are going to come back and smash the whole thing to bits. Considering the opposition's disproportionate resources and alliance with Big Oil and the Neocons, it's not exactly being paranoid...

[LoZoccolo]

116. Remember all those "good" things that were going to come from his decree power?

Well, lets see some, like freedom for his people.

[Forkboy]

117. Remember all the good things that were going to come to us when we elected Dems to office.

Well,lets see some,like ending the war for OUR people.

[sniffa]

141. ooh, touche'

[LoZoccolo]

166. And yet entirely cutting off funding was never promised by any candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3281820

[eridani]

120. Doesn't making the law less severe count as "good"?

If this law is your main standard, Venezuela hasn't been free since 1964. Why did you wait so long to voice your objection to this state of affairs?

[Cerridwen]

123. Wow! You mean he didn't go crazy with that "decree power"

he was given?

Oh, the humanity! Oh, the democracy! Oh, the...


Yeah, whatever!

It's been around since 1964...

Do I really need this :sarcasm: thingy here?!

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[1932]

160. The decree powers are narrowly defined and I'm sure amending the constitution isn't one of those

powers.

[killbotfactory]

122. So he gets blasted for not shitcanning this law, even though it was not in his power

At the same time he's accused of being a dictator.

Nice.

[Monk06]

115. Since when does a vanity poll from DU or FR for that matter constitute

an argument.

Here's the WAPO 'quote' which is not so much a quote
as a rhetorical elision.

"Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."

I don't believe the American custom of turning disrespect into
a verb is a convention is Spanish grammar. I don't trust WAPO's
'translation' for a second.

For those who are fluent in Spanish here are the official documents
regarding changes to the penal code and the broadcast act

http://infovenezuela.org/attachments-spanish/T4%20ST01%20N1%20LEY%20DE%20RESPONSABILIDAD%20SOCIAL%20EN%20RADIO%20Y%20TELEVISION.pdf

http://infovenezuela.org/attachments-spanish/T4%20ST02%20N1b%20Cuadro%20comparativo%20Reforma%20del%20Codigo%20Penal.pdf

[jkg4peace]

129. I think you are right

I do believe it is really just about slander and libel and not "disrespecting" in the American sense of the word. I seem to recall there were some opposition journalists making up stories that a mayoral candidate was a drug dealer and reporting it as facts on the news right before an election. SWIFT BOATING! I bet that's a better translation! I believe it was stuff like that prompted them to beef up the penalties. I'm too tired to go back and look it all up ... anyone else remember? I do remember it was something pretty agregious..

[Monk06]

130. RCTV also accused Chavez of having a homosexual relationship with Castro just before

The coup. The also claimed Chavez supporters
opened fire on the Anti Chavez protestors
killing 14 and wounding over 1oo.

The snipers were in fact Caracas police markmen
under the command of the mayor of Caracas, a
longtime enemy of Chavez.

[IChing]

150. Your kidding they brought homosexuality into it?

I'm not gay but that is just so.........GOP insane.


Was that in the movie? I don't remember that part.
A powerful propaganda piece for sure in a Roman Catholic nation

He's queer, a communist, native american..
Are we sure he isn't just a little bit French too?

We need to colonize these
people so we can civilize them
and save them from their own
actualization and misguided destinies.:smoke: :patriot:

[Monk06]

151. The Anti Chavista traitors in their own words here.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTRlPKQWbI&mode=related...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkcq7WpoAmc&mode=related...


The dip shits didn't know the Irish Film crew was in the
Presidential palace during and after the coup.

Also it was just recently announced that Chavez was tipped
off and had 100 paratroopers hiding in the basement waiting
to spring the trap after he surrendered.

The guy is not stupid.

[IChing]

153. Thanks for the links

I saw that in the movie.

You saved me the time finding the links
with my sardonic post which helped us
prove our point.

[Monk06]

154. You're welcome. I think it's about time DUers give Chomsky's, "Manufacturing Consent" a serious read

His thesis is simple and his proof is iron clad

Mass print and electronic media is corporate owned
and serves global corporate interests.

There is no free press anywhere on this god forsaken
rock.

[IChing]

157. Read it, recommended reading.

Anti-intellecutalism is still a problem at DU
people don't read, research, analyses

but lets the media form the conciseness
of their opinion that is based on narrow thinking
and misinformation from the limitations
of their search for the truth.

TV time..................

[Monk06]

158. Nice graphics n/t

[me b zola]

125. Your subject line reads like a Faux poll

If you don't already, it sounds as though you have all the skills to work for any of the unholy trinity of cable news stations.

[ConsAreLiars]

134. When your whole post is a falsehood, it might make people doubt your

credibility or motivations. Of course, if claiming that Chavez supported a bill he opposed (see post #114) is something your ethical framework justifies, then just come out and say it. The Straussians, like you, believe that the ends do justify the means. But your dishonesty in making this claim you have yet to explain or even acknowledge.

Or perhaps your ideological blinders are so constricting that you are completely unable to tell the difference between what you want to believe and what is true. That you are utterly deluded rather that deliberately dishonest is the kinder interpretation of that falsehood. Which is it, if you know?

[sniffa]

136. you're my hero

i so didn't see what you're poLL was referring to. i just made the 1 vote to be contrarian.

[LoZoccolo]

165. Someone else claimed the one vote as well. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

140. Fact is, the refusal to renew RCTV's license is not censorship.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way!

[IChing]

144. Facts have a liberal bias and

It seems that many Americans can not think outside of the box.

[LynnTheDem]

148. Damn!

I hate that liberal bias!

:D

[mitchum]

142. Brought to you by a 21st century MIAMI CRYBABY...

Go ahead and alert (again)

[Greyhound]

146. So when you're shown to be both wrong and mendacious you run away and hide?

how typical.:eyes:

Where's those famous balls you're always going on about? Oh wait that's only a requirement for other people, not for you.

[IChing]

155. ANYONE NOTICE HOW MANY "VOTES" THIS THREAD GOT?

I would say that the vote
speaks for itself.

[walldude]

159. Interesting... not that I give a flying fuck what Chavez does or doesn't do

Too busy worried about my own backyard to be judging someone elses..

[Charlie Brown]

161. Well done

Reason and logic are the best resources to utilize against any kind of fanaticism, even the kind of blind support I've noticed here for Chavez.

[LynnTheDem]

164. Pointing out facts is blind support.

I totally agree.

After all, one either loves and worships the man and blindly supports him, or one knows him to be a dictator, scumbag, et al.

And the reason and logic of the fact that RCTV supported & aided in an illegal coup to overthrow a democratically elected government shoud never result in that station's license being unrenewed.

In America our public broadcast licenses are rubber-stamp renewed. And we like it that way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02copps.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[fishwax]

168. appealing to facts and to reason makes you a member of a cult

at least, that's what I've been told when I've offered facts and reason in this case.

[rustydad]

167. Better read and understand this

Because you are flat wrong. Bob

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

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.

Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have omitted or buried:

1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.

2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands, they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith. Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.

Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its broadcast license renewed.

The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”

In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup. One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people, when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major justification for the coup.

RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.

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.

Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our foreign policy.

Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).