Chavez wants to limit speech on the Internet

[ProgressiveProfessor]

Venezuela's Chavez: Internet should be regulated

By JORGE RUEDA
Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for regulation of the Internet on Saturday while demanding authorities crack down on a critical news Web site that he accused of spreading false information.

In a televised speech, Chavez said: "The Internet can't be something free where anything can be done and said. No, every country has to impose its rules and regulations," Chavez said.
======================================================
More at: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_INTERNET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-14-00-08-53


Have to wonder what he would do to a site like DU

[jefferson_dem]

1. Pitiful petty tyrant.

Surely, the Chavez apologists will arrive shortly to tell us how a: abolishing free speech/press is not really a bad thig; b: the real facts are somehow lost in translation; c: critics of Chavez are brainwashed corporatists...

[hughee99]

3. There was another thread on this yesterday,

the apologists showed up, and said exactly this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Sorry for the dup, I did check first

ON EDIT: Found it...will try searching differently next time

[Kalun D]

8. LOLZ!!

there it is again, the juxtaposition of "corporatists" right above the white house logo

Chavez is wrong on this censorship but that doesn't negate the fact that he is anti-corporatist.

the greed pig companies that have oppressed S.A. for generations have met their match with Chavez, he has raised the standard of living of the working class in Venezuela and other S.A. countries in spite of the best efforts of the corporations connected to the corp-a-dems in the white house and congress.

[jefferson_dem]

10. "Chavez is wrong on this censorship"

Of course he is. Glad we agree. :thumbsup:

[Kalun D]

19. Through the Looking Glass

"critics of Chavez are brainwashed corporatists... "

really and truly through the looking glass

the real truth is the diametric opposite

the anti-Chavez crowd are the brainwashed corporate supporters.

and the likes of Google and Wikipedia already practice censorship, so for the corporatists to bash Chavez is hypocritical to say the least

[paulsby]

27. complete crap

google and wikipedia are private companies

the analogy is absurd.

if i, as the owner of a bookstore, refuse to carry holocaust denial literature, you can call that "censorship" but it is not analogous to the GOVERNMENT regulating what books i can and can't carry.

chavez is the GOVERNMENT. if he censors, it is far different than if google or wikipedia or joe's bookstore uses editorial discretion

not even remotely analogous, and not at all hypocritical for "corporatists" to criticize chavez.

if you own a bookstore, you have every right not to carry (for example) holocaust denial literature

the GOVERNMENT is wrong to prohibit it's dissemination or possession (note that many european countries being less free in regards to speech do so).

the same holds true for racist literature, anti-corporatist literature, etc.

hth

[Kalun D]

29. Primary Point

but you couldn't touch the primary point

"critics of Chavez are brainwashed corporatists... "

really and truly through the looking glass

the real truth is the diametric opposite

the anti-Chavez crowd are the brainwashed corporate supporters.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Um, I think you're confused. That's the same thing.

I said Chavez apologists would say "critics of Chavez are brainwashed corporatists."

You say "the anti-Chavez crowd are the brainwashed corporate supporters."

You just proved my point.

[paulsby]

32. true and reliance on language like

"brainwashed corporatists" pretty much tells you that poster isn't interested in rational discussion

[jefferson_dem]

33. I generally dismiss and walk away from any poster who drops the inane "corporatists" label.

You're right - there's zero chance of rational discussion with anyone who sees the world in such "black" versus "white" colors. Kind of like the flip side of Bush's "fer us or again us".

[ecstatic]

2. this will be interesting

:popcorn:

[Odin2005]

4. Chavez can go fuck his Authoritatrian self.

[pretzel4gore]

5. the reactionarkies are held up, a little here...

so DU would be ok. It's the 'farenbalanced' Busheviki News Goofs ie CnnFuxCbsNbcAbcPbsCbciakgbomgetc that President Chavez maybe wants to force to be more honest, more fair, more balanced. Fraud is fraud
(the airwaves are public property, so why not have a public voice defending the common wealth from the greedy pig?)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. The Internet is not public property

though that may surprise some. Note also his call was for all nations should control content...

[pretzel4gore]

13. public money built the machine

the 'public' is the internet. The public is the people. The public is the world, life, the energy. The difference between the public/private is in their interests. The private interest says that privilege of the few goes before the needs of the many. They lie. Everytime. About everything. They must lie. If the truth was told (through public broadcasters) then fuxnews lies get exposed. No war in Iraq. No subprime mortgage fiasco (ie selling debt as asset) by mr pig! Maybe no mr pig klol (ie free pork roast for all, yum yum!)
If Chavez is so powerful, then why not just do it defacto style, like the nazipoohs always do, in middle of night, after huge snowstorm/terror attack/disaster ties up news media?
why is newsmedia owned by mr pig?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. No it did not

The concepts and basic concepts were worked out mostly education institutions on Federal money. The actual network is owned by a large number of private companies, both servers and infrastructure. It works on agreement to acknowledged standards. The public is a consumer of its products and resources, hosted and and given transit on private networks.

There is no law that says the the email must go through. IN the US, no ISP or bandwidth provider is required to provide service to any company or individual who asks for it. Its truly a huge system made up of many independent private parts scattered intentionally and not accountable to any one government. For more on this read up on the Internet Death Penalty, Usenet Death Penalty, and TOSsing.

[pretzel4gore]

18. 100 percent of wealth/power is public

we're arguing over semantics. Allan Turing was a private person, agreed, and much of the code breaking (bletchley) was private initiative, and so on, but the reality is that public wealth/power drive everything that ever happened, whether the man on the moon hoax(?) or discovery of america, or victory in war, or building highway/railway/educational/internets systems etc.
Question is: should privilege of the few trump the needs of the many in public policy debates (ie government debates)?
Or should needs of the many be taken care of by giving the few privileges- and hope that result in improvement for all?
in a mid 80's 'national geographic' magazine article, it was mentioned how only two '3rd world' nations achieved 99% literacy rates. They were also nations US warred against. That was Cuba and Iraq. IOW, trusting the common wealth to private interest says the public then must be defrauded (as surely 99 percent literacy must say something about otherwise anti USA poor countries- Haiti/Egypt being pro USA examples!)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Mao and a number of others (including me) disagree with that

Its philosophical not factual issue...so a diversity of positions is to be expected

[jefferson_dem]

9. How would you respond to Bush (or Obama, for that matter) censoring *internet content* in the USA?

...all in the name of some state-ordained "common wealth"?

[Posteritatis]

11. The general rule is to cheer it on if it's politically agreeable or beneficial at the moment. (nt)

[cowman]

12. Well

the chavez apologists would say that it's different because chavez is enlightened and bush was a tyrant

[pretzel4gore]

15. hammer,

meet nail!
;)

[cowman]

24. You the hammer?

well I guess I should be properly chastised right? NOT I really don't give a shit what you or others think about what I think of that asshole chavez. It's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

[Kalun D]

20. Looking at what Obama does and not what he says

I'm sure if Obama thought he could get away with censoring the internet he would.

[paulsby]

28. fox, ccn etc don't USE THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES

so how is that really relevant?

[tritsofme]

14. Uncle Hugo knows best!

[devilgrrl]

17. Well, if the report is coming from AP - most DUer's are smart enough to dismiss it as BULLSHIT!

:popcorn:

[The Straight Story]

21. Does anyone have a list of sources that are totally fair on Chavez so I can worship too?

because if there is anything - EVER - negative about him by a source it is no longer a good source.

I need to see the light, unlike the many others out there who see some things he does as negative. I know, and some here know, such is not even possible.

[devilgrrl]

23. Oh, I don't worship - I just don't trust anything I've ever heard or read about him - why should I?

:popcorn:

[The Straight Story]

25. Was not referring to you personally. That said:

" I just don't trust anything I've ever heard or read about him - why should I?"

Healthy skepticism is one thing, it just seems some will strike down any negative story about him at all. On the other hand some will accept anything negative.

Kind of like folks in the dungeon at times on sources/witnesses/etc.

[Kalun D]

22. Agree

Is the source of this "news" the criminal corporate monopolies that control the US mainstream media? Que bono? They have been inconvenienced to say the least by Chavez lifting up the working class, who would be surprised if they were to spew out a bunch of anti-Chavez propaganda?

[Kaleva]

30. Has he and Cheney become BFF?