|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:35 am Post subject: Free Speech. Who needs it. Not Chavez! |
 |
|
Like many posters on Dave's, Hugo Chavez does not believe in freedom of speech. It's inconvenient to allow those who are opposed to your agenda to have the right to spread any message that detracts from your own fascist-socialist propaganda.
Solution: keep your opponents, TV stations, radio stations, corporations and anyone else off the air!
| Quote: |
Anti-Chavez channel removed from cable
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER, Associated Press Writer � 1 hr 7 mins ago
CARACAS, Venezuela � Venezuelan cable television providers stopped transmitting a channel critical of President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, after the government cited noncompliance with new regulations requiring the socialist leader's speeches be televised on cable.
Radio Caracas Television, an anti-Chavez channel known as RCTV that switched to cable and satellite television in 2007 after the government refused to renew its over-the-air license, disappeared from TV sets shortly after midnight.
RCTV was yanked from cable and satellite programming just hours after Diosdado Cabello, director of Venezuela's state-run telecommunications agency, said several local channels carried by cable television have breached broadcasting laws and should be removed from the airwaves.
RCTV did not broadcast a speech by the president to his political supporters during a rally early on Saturday.
The station's removal from cable and satellite television prompted a cacophony of protests in Caracas neighborhoods as Chavez opponents leaned out apartment windows to bang on pots and pans. Others shouted epithets and drivers joined in, honking car horns.
"They want to silence RCTV's voice," said Miguel Angel Rodriguez, the channel's most popular talk show host. "But they won't be able to because RCTV is embedded in the hearts of all Venezuelans."
Venezuela's telecommunications agency has said in the past week that under new rules, two dozen local cable channels including RCTV must carry government programming when officials deem the measure necessary, just like channels on the open airwaves already do. Chavez often uses the measure to force all the country's TV channels and radio stations to broadcast his speeches.
Cabello said Saturday that other violations committed by cable channels include failing to warn viewers of sexual and violent content as well as broadcasting more than two hours of soap operas during the afternoon, which should be mostly dedicated to children programming.
In denying RCTV a renewal of its over-the-air broadcast license, Chavez accused the station of plotting against his government and supporting a failed 2002 coup.
In August, Chavez's government forced 32 radio stations and two small TV stations off the air, saying some owners had failed to renew their broadcast licenses while other licenses were no longer valid because they had been granted long ago to owners who are now dead. Officials said they planned to take more stations off the air |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm a LOT less concerned with what does and doesn't appear in the Venezuelan media than in the American media. Re: Last week's Supreme Court decision treating corporations as people rather than legal fictions. It is not clear yet whether The Supremes handed Citgo, the Venezuelan petroleum company, the right to spend as much of their profits as they please buying and selling votes in US elections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
banjois
Joined: 14 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently he's blaming the US for causing the earthquake in Haiti now, too:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116688§ionid=351020704
He's losing his street cred, fast. On a side note, I spent a winter in the bush in the Yukon, and all the tin-hat bush people were blaming HAARP for screwing with their radiophones, too, which I'd actually be inclined to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm a LOT less concerned with what does and doesn't appear in the Venezuelan media than in the American media. Re: Last week's Supreme Court decision treating corporations as people rather than legal fictions. It is not clear yet whether The Supremes handed Citgo, the Venezuelan petroleum company, the right to spend as much of their profits as they please buying and selling votes in US elections. |
People keep on talking about freedom of speech in America. Come on, let's be serious. As I was saying before the Supreme Court ruling, the American people can barely be heard above the cash spent by corporations, and the airwaves are run almost completely by corporate interests. Chavez is just obvious about it. We tell ourselves we have freedom of speech. We just can say more than what they can say in Venezuela, but are limited, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you start with a stupid idea of what free speech is, adventurer, you'll end up with a ridiculous conclusion. See your post above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm a LOT less concerned with what does and doesn't appear in the Venezuelan media than in the American media. Re: Last week's Supreme Court decision treating corporations as people rather than legal fictions. It is not clear yet whether The Supremes handed Citgo, the Venezuelan petroleum company, the right to spend as much of their profits as they please buying and selling votes in US elections. |
People keep on talking about freedom of speech in America. Come on, let's be serious. As I was saying before the Supreme Court ruling, the American people can barely be heard above the cash spent by corporations, and the airwaves are run almost completely by corporate interests. Chavez is just obvious about it. We tell ourselves we have freedom of speech. We just can say more than what they can say in Venezuela, but are limited, too. |
I don't think that the idea of free speech, it its classical sense, was ever meant to protect someone's voice from being drowned out by moneyed interests. It was just meant to guarantee that people would be unrestricted by the government in the expression of ideas, not that they would have the economic wherewithal to get those ideas a mass hearing.
In reagrds to Chavez: Free-speech, even in the land of the First Amendment, is usually not interpreted as applying to the airwaves. The stuff that gets shown in American porn movies would never be allowed on network TV at three in the afternoon, for example. So, in and of itself, the act of regulating TV networks does not constitute a violation of free speech on Chavez's part. There is the question, though, of what criteria Chavez is using to decide who does and doesn't get a license. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm a LOT less concerned with what does and doesn't appear in the Venezuelan media than in the American media. Re: Last week's Supreme Court decision treating corporations as people rather than legal fictions. It is not clear yet whether The Supremes handed Citgo, the Venezuelan petroleum company, the right to spend as much of their profits as they please buying and selling votes in US elections. |
People keep on talking about freedom of speech in America. Come on, let's be serious. As I was saying before the Supreme Court ruling, the American people can barely be heard above the cash spent by corporations, and the airwaves are run almost completely by corporate interests. Chavez is just obvious about it. We tell ourselves we have freedom of speech. We just can say more than what they can say in Venezuela, but are limited, too. |
I came across one interesting possible legal response to the Supreme Court decision. Use federal funds to magnify individual donations. For example, if a family contributes $200 to Candidate X, the gov't will match that with $1000. That would help raise the influence of private money. (My objection to it is that it would be a windfall to media corporations and not really repair the basic problem.)
I'm surprised at some of the people defending the Court's decision. My impression of many of the protesters we've seen on TV this past year was their resentment of the influence of big money. I expected to see more outrage from at least the moderate conservatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| If you start with a stupid idea of what free speech is, adventurer, you'll end up with a ridiculous conclusion. See your post above. |
I do think that access to media is a legitimate issue to discuss. Just that it's not really covered by the traditional idea of free speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| banjois wrote: |
| Apparently he's blaming the US for causing the earthquake in Haiti now, too... |
Two predictable things here:
First, that H. Chavez alleged this.
Second, that those, not only here, but in the media at large, who were so quick and thorough in pouncing on Pat Robertson for his nonsense have completely let this one slide...
________
| On the Other Hand wrote: |
| It was just meant to guarantee that people would be unrestricted by the government in the expression of ideas, not that they would have the economic wherewithal to get those ideas a mass hearing. |
Yes, and especially that speech having to do with politics and religion. Censoring four-letter words and *beep* and ass from daytime television is not the same thing, On the Other Hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, and especially that speech having to do with politics and religion. Censoring four-letter words and *beep* and ass from daytime television is not the same thing, On the Other Hand. |
No, but I would guess that, under American law at least, censoring those words from privately published books and magazines would be regarded as a First Amendment violation, even if they weren't being used in a political or religious context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless, H. Chavez presents the following pattern as Venezuela's dictator: he is alleging foreign-supported anti-Venezuelan conspiracies and using this allegation to attack and close any and all media that opposes or simply critiques him personally. This continues to enable him to solidify indefinite dictatorship.
No matter how you spin it, no American govt has done this, although I will grant that the Adams administration approached this for a year or two during the so-called quasi-war.
Our constitutions and our govts' behavior differ, On the Other Hand, and considerably so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't think that the idea of free speech, it its classical sense, was ever meant to protect someone's voice from being drowned out by moneyed interests. It was just meant to guarantee that people would be unrestricted by the government in the expression of ideas, not that they would have the economic wherewithal to get those ideas a mass hearing.
|
It's more than a little tricky knowing what the Founders would have thought about the current situation. Jefferson, the most noted on the side of free speech was also vehemently against concentrations of wealth. It should be noted that Jefferson was a master at pursuing his political objectives through the newspapers of the day. He headed the creation of the opposition while he was serving in Washington's cabinet and while he was Vice President in Adams' administration. In addition, mass appeal as we know it was not yet an issue. The leaders really only talked to the political class that was rather severely limited in numbers. Campaigns were largely waged by letter-writing from and to local influence wielders.
More useful, in my opinion, is to look at what was thought and done after the rise of the modern industrial state since it is what we have today. The progressives pushed against the 'money interest' and in 1907, under Theodore Roosevelt, regulations on corporate spending on elections began.
| Quote: |
| No, but I would guess that, under American law at least, censoring those words from privately published books and magazines would be regarded as a First Amendment violation, even if they weren't being used in a political or religious context. |
I don't know when it began, but those words were banned for a very long time. It was only in my lifetime that the law changed. 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' could not be printed or imported when I was a kid. The first copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' that I read didn't have a cover because few bookstores sold it and it was hard to find. (People passed around books without covers so no one would know what you were reading, somewhat similar to manuscripts in the Soviet Union.) When I was really young, Banned in Boston meant the book was racy and risque (yeah, individual cities could and did ban books). Don't forget that for something like 40 years married couples in movies/TV had to be shown with separate beds and at least one of the actors had to keep one foot on the floor. Sex scenes consisted of a lot of waves crashing on the shore.
When you come right down to it, the First Amendment didn't have much of a life until the 20th Century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| banjois wrote: |
| Apparently he's blaming the US for causing the earthquake in Haiti now, too... |
Two predictable things here:
First, that H. Chavez alleged this.
Second, that those, not only here, but in the media at large, who were so quick and thorough in pouncing on Pat Robertson for his nonsense have completely let this one slide...
|
Really? Please show us where Chavez personally made this allegation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
banjois
Joined: 14 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I posted the link. Can't speak to it's validity, but it looks legit.
It makes it hard to hold my political ground when so many on the left consistently act like tremendous douchebags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Blade, really. You cannot search the Internet for information that appears all over Google and Youtube?
Real Clear Politics
And if you dislike or morally disapprove of that source, I am sure you will find comfort in Alex Jones, with links to Jesse Ventura as well... 
Prison Planet
Some of you people know no bounds in the amount of god-like power and omniscience -- and the will to use it maliciously -- you would assign to the American govt. I suppose, though, nothing surprises me anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
