Chavez defends plan for Internet regulations

[Freetradesucks]

Source: Washington Post

The Associated Press
Sunday, December 19, 2010; 4:10 PM
CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez defended plans for a law that would impose broadcast-type regulations on the Internet, saying Sunday that his government should protect citizens against online crimes.

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

Government opponents and press freedom groups have been critical of the plan, saying it is one of several measures being considered that could restrict freedoms in Venezuela.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121902461.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I am sure that he has the best possible intentions to limit...

use of the Internet.

[subsuelo]

40. Do you find this (photo) acceptable?

[mommalegga]

57. No Problem with it at all...

Charlie Chaplin yes?

"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you"...Larry Flynt

[Imajika]

3. Chavez cheerleader brigades inbound in 3...2...1...

Broadcast type internet regulations to "protect" citizens from "disrespecting public authorities", "inciting or promoting hatred" or "creating anxiety in the population"? Seriously?

Only hard core Chavistas would support this, and we all know we have many here.

Or is this just a mistranslation? Or is it just from a right wing source?

Chavez could eat newborn babies on live TV and so long as he hailed the wonders of socialism and bashed the United States, the Chavez cheerleaders would continue supporting him. For the cheerleaders, this sort of outrageous stuff is overlooked because for them, the ends justify the means.

[COLGATE4]

34. Just the beginning. Wait for some other memorable decrees

now that he can run roughshod over the Congress for the next 18 months.

[Creative]

106. Chavez's supporters are the most regressive and hypocritical people I have ever seen.

They will twist themselves into the most contorted of shapes in an effort to convince others that this militaristic little thug is a democrat.

For them, there is only one choice; that is, the false choice of a left-wing or right-wing dictatorship.

[bemildred]

4. I look forward to WaPo's uncoming defense of Wikileaks.

:sarcasm:

[Judi Lynn]

6. Should be memorable. n/t

[NashVegas]

90. +5

[DemocratAholic]

5. Chavez is out of control

This gets more frightening everyday. I am afraid what this is going to lead to.

[bemildred]

7. It will lead to more ignorant blathering on the Internet is my guess. nt

[subsuelo]

43. Maybe it will lead to less of this? (photo)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. So Hugo doesn't like being compared a fascist dictator of the sort

who criminalized political dissent.

So his remedy is to criminalize dissent.

You'd think a former soldier would know better than to shoot himself in the foot.

[SoBronxSchool]

107. Foot

He's a joke. He needs to go.

[subsuelo]

113. You are aware that the U.S. has libel laws?

So when the U.S. does it, it's defended as protection from damaging malicious lies.

But when Venezuela does anything similar, it's that damn leftist dictator criminalizing dissent.

Very hypocritical. I'm surprised so many here lack the ability to comprehend all this. But then, the U.S. is awash in right wing corporate propaganda on a daily basis, so to a certain extent it is understandable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. So you want a Ministry of Truth set-up by the government to decide

when someone has gone too far in criticizing the government.

Let us know how that works out for you but please don't try it here.

I've been to plenty of anti-war protests while I was on campus. I'm glad no government official had the power you would use.

Half of DU can't even see an argument through without spouting "Just a bunch of RW lies!" I can only imagine if these "lies" were actionable.

If Hugo doesn't want to be portrayed as a dictator he should stop acting like one. But if he uses his power to silence dissent then he earned that front page so at that point it ceases to be libel and it becomes the truth.

[AlphaCentauri]

122. There are many antichavistas that want to murder him so where is the limit on freedom of speech

http://www.huliq.com/1/76313/mississippi-man-arrested-obama-internet-assassination-threats

http://articles.mcall.com/2010-12-13/news/mc-allentown-facebook-threats-bail-he20101213_1_internet-threats-lower-saucon-man-federal-agents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. You mean people want to rid themselves of a budding tyrant/despot?

Well, we can't allow THAT now, can we?

Best to give said despot all the power he needs to silence all critics.

BTW - making violent direct threats has never been protected. Calling a tyrant a tyrant will certainly aggravate the tyrant but it is also quite permissible. One of your links refers to a cyber-bully. Suppose the cyber-bully was outed as a cyber-bully and as a result drew tremendous amounts of scorn and lost friends and even a job over it? Could the cyber-bully then use slander laws to silence the person who outed them?

I should hope not because calling a bully a bully isn't libel. So calling someone who wants to silence dissent a dissent silencing dictator is just as factual.

But this case doesn't even meet on the same level as a cyber-bully. Because both victim and perpetrator have a mediator to appeal to, the government.

Chavez is demanding the power to be the victim as well as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

Next thing you know he'll claim representative lawyers are co-conspirators so he should be allowed to pick defense council as well.

[ttwiddler]

124. This makes no sense

Libel is a civil action, not a criminal action. It is a private civil action at that. Further, libel, and slander, both require the statement to be demonstrably false (as a general rule). Additionally, governments at all levels in the US lack the standing to sue for either.

Your comparison is invalid.

[boppers]

8. DU access will be denied, I'd guess.

That would be a bit amusing.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Zorro]

21. What you mean "us", Kemosabe?

[boppers]

26. Zorro riffing on Tonto....

:rofl:

[boppers]

29. "Most" is not "all".

Since the criteria of things they would blacklist includes "anxiety", I'm not holding out hope.

[Judi Lynn]

9. I'd like to know why it got little disrespect among the rightists when it was learned

some racist fool from Bolivia, living in the U.S. had used his Facebook or whatever to call for the assassination of Evo Morales?
His messages were IMMEDIATELY stricken. IMMEDIATELY.

We discussed it here, but oddly enough, there weren't any rightwing loons wanting to suddenly express their deep abiding preference for all "free speech" even when it endangers others.

Here's more on this possibly impending change to Venezuela's internet laws:

The Associated Press December 10, 2010, 4:42PM ET
Venezuela considers Internet regulations
By FABIOLA SANCHEZ
CARACAS, Venezuela

~snip~
A man employed by Venezuela's state electric utility was arrested in September after authorities said he used a message on Twitter to call for President Hugo Chavez's assassination. The man, Jesus Majano, was arraigned and then freed pending additional court hearings. Prosecutors have accused him of "instigating public hatred."

In July, Venezuelan prosecutors accused two people of spreading false rumors about the country's banking system using Twitter. The attorney general's office said the two were detained and then freed pending additional court hearings. The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders accused the government of targeting ordinary Internet users who were simply expressing their views online.

Pro-Chavez lawmaker Manuel Villalba, in remarks to the state-run Venezuelan News Agency, denied the measures are aimed at restricting the Internet. Lawmakers are scheduled to discuss the proposed revisions to the broadcast law on Tuesday.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9K19TN80.htm

Has everyone simply gone mentally dead, unable to retrieve ANY of the unbelievable infringements of US Americans' rights to free speech during the _Bush years?

Kicking people out of shopping malls who wore politically inapproriate t-shirts? Off planes for the same reason? FBI agents stopping in to question people in apartments who had posters on their walls referring to _{George W. Bush?} Stopping in to art car museums to question political art there?

Raising hell over a float a man constructed showing _{George W. Bush's} pants on fire? Imprisoning a drunk in a bar who referred to the Biblical story of the "Burning Bush?" Etc., etc., etc. ETC. ETC.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[naaman fletcher]

20. coffee shop revolutionary, that is.

real revolutionaries put their butts on the line.

[The abyss]

22. You just reminded me of a memorable film quote

"Why're you a revolutionary?" they asked her.

"To rid the world of scum like you," she said.

[joshcryer]

28. No, most people who back government power are status quo.

Just because that government power wants to "socialize" everything doesn't change that fact.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. You're wearing the "tu quoque" fallacy out, you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkweː/ <1>), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.<2> It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.<3>

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. That's the first page of the Chavez Cheerleader playbook. nt

[molly77]

23. Judi Lynn

I am a big Hugo Chavez fan. Really appreciate your knowledge of his government and him.

[Judi Lynn]

32. New story today: Which are the countries most effective in reducing poverty and inequality?

Monday, December 20th 2010 - 06:09 UTC

Which are the countries most effective in reducing poverty and inequality?

Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela are the countries which most reduced inequality and poverty during the last decade in Latinamerica, according to Alicia Bárcena, executive secretary from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Cepal.

“There’s a big cut when one compares the decade of the nineties in Argentina, together with Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela, they are the countries which most reduced inequality and poverty”, said Ms Barcena interviewed by the Buenos Aires press.

“We can say Latinamerica is nowadays a progressive region of the world, since the only way out of inequality is with jobs, but jobs with rights and protection”.

“Progressive countries leave a very positive legacy, since there is no way back for social policies. Social expenditure is not lost, on the contrary it has become the dynamo for several economies” underlined Ms Barcena who nevertheless pointed out that “investment in science and technology is one of the region’s main deficits”, and must be addressed if the path to effectively eliminate poverty is to continue.

More:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/12/20/which-are-the-countries-most-effective-in-reducing-poverty-and-inequality

Thank you, molly77. Just keep researching. You won't be disappointed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Nice threadjack. Directly addressing the OP is problematic for you, isn't it?

You can't not approve of the Dear Leader of Venezuela's actions, as the cool kids won't let you hang with them if you
did that.

You can't come out and say directly it's a good idea, because those poopyheads in the US, Australia, and the UK might get the idea
that it would be OK for them to do the same thing, and we can't have that, now can we?


So, you go off topic with yet another variation on:

"In other news, all is for the best in that best of all possible nations, Venezuela..."

and hope that no one notices

[Dreamer Tatum]

That's Judi's basic MO, don't you know.

Her ministrations in defense of Fuhrer Chavez have involved, in my estimation, most of the logical fallacies known by man.

[joshcryer]

27. Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

There is a major distinction between a private or corporate website deleting comments and federal, government, intrusion into speech by denying access to data or sites.

Meanwhile all of the anarchist websites that were up during the Bush years are still up, and indeed, even librarians made an effective case for making them available. Wikileaks is still accessible, and in the end, the vast majority of deviant sites that exist (such as 4chan, stormfront, liveleak, ogrishforums, etc, etc) are still accessible to the public at large. So please spare me the nonsense.

The only event that I recall the government getting involved in is pedophilia sites, which they did block or take over. But pedophilia isn't covered by free speech like talking about raping people or talking racist or publishing sick images or videos.

[NYC Liberal]

68. Judi: Here is the actual text of the law straight from the National Assembly's website:

http://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=2771&tmpl=component&format=raw&Itemid=185〈=es (PDF)

and the relevant section, as far as I can tell:

Artículo 28
Prohibiciones

En los servicios de radio, televisión y medios electrónicos, no está permitida la difusión de los mensajes que:

1. Inciten o promuevan el odio y la intolerancia por razones religiosas, políticas, por diferencia de género, por racismo o xenofobia.

2. Inciten o promuevan y/ o hagan apología al delito.

3. Constituyan propaganda de Guerra.

4. Fomenten zozobra en la ciudadanía o alteren el orden público.

5. Desconozcan a las autoridades legítimamente constituidas.

6. Induzcan al homicidio.

7. Inciten o promuevan el incumplimiento del ordenamiento jurídico vigente.

English via Google Translate:

Article 28
Prohibitions

In the services of radio, television and electronic media is not allowed
dissemination of messages:

1. Incite or promote hatred and intolerance for religious, political, and gender difference, by racism or xenophobia.

2. Incite or promote and / or justify the crime.

3. Constitute war propaganda.

4. Promote anxiety in the public or disturb public order.

5. Unknown to the legitimately constituted authorities.

6. Induce the killing.

7. Incite or promote the violation of existing law.

Automatic translations are always a little iffy, of course. My Spanish is not great but #5 I *believe* means "Denying the legitimately constituted authorities" - ie, denying the legitimacy of the government.

I am always wary of what the MSM puts out (whether is be about Chavez or Obama or ANYTHING). If it is what it seems to be, the US has the SAME kinds of laws against inciting violence, promoting murder, advocating the overthrow of the government, etc.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. *IF* that translation is correct, DU would be guilty of item #5- and be censored in Venezuela

Remember all that discussion of how Shrub stole the 2000 election?

Strange how many DUers are ready to praise a dish they wouldn't care to eat....

[NYC Liberal]

74. Yes that's the key. The other items are reasonable and

there are laws against that here. As for #5, Google Translate came up with "Unknown to authorities" ... but it also gave some alternate meanings such as "Disclaim" or "disavow" and I am guessing that the sense of it is denying the legitimacy of the government.

The best thing to do when considering whether or not to support a law is to think about whether you would support it with someone you disagree with in power. It doesn't matter if you agree with or like the current people in power...because they will not be around forever. A law has to be good no matter who is in power. And it should always contain checks against potential abuse. (This is what's wrong with many laws: the concept is fine, but there are not safeguards against abuse.)

[cali]

108. It's not a good idea. Broad and overreaching.

you can still admire Chavez and admit that this is just not a good idea.

[ttwiddler]

125. Hoping the translation is kind of accurate

1. Perfectly legal in the US. It is not illegal to disparage people for whatever reason you choose. It is illegal to encourage others to break the law to express that disparagement.

3. I don't know what this means, so I won't guess.

4. This is vague, so no guessing.

5. This one just can't ever fly in any society that wants to trumpet freedom in any respect. It smacks of laws against insulting the king.

6. Not sure, no guess.

7. MLK would have had a problem with this one.

[bluestateguy]

11. Ah yes, the great "progressive" leader of Venezuela

nt

[Kurska]

12. But..but...but he says bad things about the united states!

How can he not be a perfect paragon of progressive politics!

:sarcasm:

[Freetradesucks]

13. Nail on the head.

It's scary when "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes into play, and your enemy is your own country.

[NeoConsSuck]

30. And why is that scary?

[sharesunited]

15. Look on the bright side...

What would Hugo do with Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. There's a bright side to censorship? n/t

[christx30]

83. Yeah

Until the pendelum swings the other way and the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world are in charge, and it is your people that are no longer in power.

[joshcryer]

19. If the US did this it'd be OK right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Actually, they're trying to: "Feds Seek Computer Firewall to Block WikiLeaks 'Pollution'"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x47268

Anyone care to explain why this is good in Venezuela and bad in the States?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

47. Feds are not blocking wikileaks from the United States

Just from govt agencies and contractors.

No different than corporations that currently block access to Facebook and Twitter and porn sites through the corporate firewalls.

I think our congressional representatives and senators will still have access to porn sites, thank god!

:hi:

[Dappleganger]

25. You tell me how this is good for the people.

Helping the country through a tough time is one thing, but taking away their right to information is quite another!

[subsuelo]

42. You tell me how this (photo) is good for the people

Do you find this acceptable?

[boppers]

114. Should you be arrested for posting this image on DU?

I find the photo amusing, especially because they used Chaplin rather than Hitler... So I answered your question, what is your answer to mine?

[Bacchus39]

31. censorship. banning messages that disrespect public authorities

thats going to be alot of banning

[UTUSN]

35. K&R #10 for bwah-ha-HAH !1 That Huguito, always protecting!1 n/t

[IBEWVET]

38. K&R

[conspirator]

39. Don't go there Chavez or you will loose most of your supporters. Take the critics

like you have nothing to hide.

[subsuelo]

41. No, Chavez supporters understand the situation

This is the type of thing he's dealing with right now



Do you find this acceptable?

[Mudoria]

44. I think I saw quite a few variations of this of Bush on DU...

seemed acceptable here and drew loud cheers and approval. No one called for the internet to be regulated and censored and the country appears to have survived. Did you find it acceptable then?

[subsuelo]

45. That's no comparison to front page of a newspaper

I'll tell you something, try posting an image depicting the POTUS as Hitler on the front page of an American newspaper and see how long that lasts.

[slackmaster]

48. I think Mother Jones did that to George W. Bush at least once

Why would that be a problem?

[subsuelo]

50. The Bush family had actual ties to Nazis, though right?

If this is what you are remembering, there really is no comparison

[slackmaster]

52. Claiming "no comparison" is a chickenshit, empty argument

Hitlerizing a person is just hyperbole, and whether or not it makes any sense depends entirely on the perspective of the viewer.

Portraying any person as Hitler does not do any real harm. For a public figure, especially an elected official, getting lampooned and criticized severely by your political adversaries is just part of the deal.

[subsuelo]

58. Wow, now *that* is a chicken shit right wingnut argument.

So if Fox News starts portraying Obama as Hitler as part of their daily "news" programming, you would argue "Hey it doesn't do any real harm"?

Pathetic.

[slackmaster]

60. They have a right to do exactly that, if that is what they want to do

I don't have to agree with someone as a pre-condition for supporting their rights to own, say, or do whatever things I don't like.

If you really think that's a right-wing position, I think your view is pretty distorted. Right-wing authoritarians are very much into political censorship, as are left-wing authoritarians.

Your support of a left-wing authoritarian position demonstrates your bias. Everyone has biases, and that's why I have a problem with the concept of net neutrality.

[subsuelo]

64. No, they don't have a "right" to do that

We have laws preventing the very thing.

Do some homework and get back to me, ok? I'm done.

[slackmaster]

66. Let me know when someone gets prosecuted for that. Here's some reading for you...

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

We have laws preventing the very thing.

No we don't, and we have laws that explicitly protect the right to do that very thing.

Adolf Hitler isn't mentioned in any federal law that I'm aware of.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. That homework was easy- Search DU for 'Bushitler' and you get *4000+* hits:

Don't believe me? Try it yourself in the search window at the top of the page. I got:

....Results 1 - 10 of about 4,280 from democraticunderground.com for Bushitler. (0.19 seconds)

with some pretty venomous remarks on display (not that he didn't earn most of them...).

[cali]

110. lol. that 's the weakest argument I can imagine.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

46. That's perfectly acceptable to me, as long as it isn't being done with public money

Freedom of speech, the press and all that. (BTW that is an image of Charlie Chaplin, so it's automatically funny.)

Of course I am accustomed to living in a country where the rights of free speech and the press are explicitly recognized as vital to our liberty.

[subsuelo]

53. So if Fox News decides to start depicting Obama as Hitler

you would be ok with that?

[slackmaster]

55. Yes, I'd be perfectly OK with that. Fox News isn't getting any public money.

They're entitled to the opinions, and nobody is forcing me or anyone else to watch it.

I suspect that some of their advertisers would bail on them if they did that, and they'd be setting themselves up for robust, pointed responses from the rest of the talking head media as well as newspapers, the Web, and other forms of communication.

[Codeine]

70. I would. They most assuredly have that right.

I'm a little gobsmacked that someone on the left would be unaware of the concept of free expression.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Oh, they're aware of it- they just don't want *those* people expressing themselves. n/t

[subsuelo]

76. You need to research what constitutes libel. n/t

[Codeine]

77. Is that your professional legal opinion? nt

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ttwiddler]

126. Libel doesn't apply to public figures

Oh sure, the Sullivan case claims that a public figure can recover for libel or slander, but it's not going to happen. The standard of actual malice is near impossible to prove. You'd almost need the defendant in such a suit to actually claim that they libeled/slandered the plaintiff because they hated him/her.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. It's an opinion. A cartoon. Sure, it's acceptable

Our presidents, Dem and Rep, all get lampooned by various press and non-press sites.

Has Chavez offered any proof that he was born in Venezuela? He looks Kenyan to me, possibly Islamic.

:hi:

[NYC Liberal]

51. Legally? Absolutely acceptable - Bush, Chavez, Obama, the pope.

Please link me to the law that Congress passed or proposed to LEGALLY BAN that above billboard.

[subsuelo]

54. That billboard got replaced fairly quickly, didn't it? n/t

[slackmaster]

56. Unpopular, controversial opinions have a way of getting quashed by public reaction

That's how it's supposed to work.

[subsuelo]

61. Actually, we have laws against libel and slander.

You do know that right?

[slackmaster]

63. Criticizing a politician by making him or her into Hitler isn't liber or slander

:hi:

[subsuelo]

80. Fine, go get a job as chief editor of a major newspaper...

... then start posting front page pics of the POTUS depicted as a Nazi with HEIL HITLER as the headline.

Your ass will wind up in court faster than you can Google "libel", I guarantee that.

[slackmaster]

82. Plenty of people have equated President Obama with Hitler, and not one has been sued for it.

Did anyone sue the New Yorker for this cover?



Why do you suppose that is?

Your ass will wind up in court faster than you can Google "libel", I guarantee that.

I get the impression you really don't understand the meaning of the term "libel".

[subsuelo]

84. LOL. Clearly you need to Google "satire" too.

What a waste of time this whole thing has become...

[slackmaster]

86. Barack Obama as Muslim militant = "satire", Barack Obama as Hitler = "not satire"

I think I've got it now.

:crazy:

[subsuelo]

91. Seriously, could you actually read about libel law before commenting further?

If the intent can be proven to be malicious, there is a major difference.

Google this stuff, will ya?

[slackmaster]

92. It's perfectly OK, and not actionable as libel, for political satire to be malicious

That's what politics is all about. The goal of some political activity is to DESTROY your opponent's prospects in an election, or even to derail that person's career completely.

Do you believe that the artist who created this image didn't feel malice toward George W. Bush? That he or she meant to do to Bush no harm whatsoever?



It's not libelous, and the exact same image with President Obama's face and name wouldn't be libelous either.

[subsuelo]

97. Again (getting tired of saying this)... that is not a newspaper front page

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to see the difference between an artist's painting and a malicious newspaper front page lie.

[slackmaster]

98. There is no substantive difference. Both illustrations are satirical portrayals of politicians.

Both are intended to put a negative light on their subjects.

The fact that one was printed on a piece of paper and another was presented in a different medium makes no difference. Both are statements of opinions.

[subsuelo]

100. LOL. Now you are playing games.

Kind of chickenshit to pretend the only difference is one of mediums used, don't you think?

[slackmaster]

102. You tell me what the difference is.

Start by defining the term "newspaper".

[subsuelo]

105. Oh come on.

You've admitted below that there is actually a point in which the actions of a newspaper would be considered libel, and that's all I've been getting at all along.

Freedom of speech and in this case freedom of the press has it's limits, at least in the U.S.

Since this much has been established, we should move on to the next question - who are we to condemn Venezuela for taking their own action in establishing certain limits or constraints, when we here in the U.S. enjoy our own protections from malicious and often libellous attacks?

Is the picture getting clearer for you now?

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Oh, it's very clear. You support the idea of "Lèse majesté" and describe it as libel

Tell us, is this picture good for the people? Should the site that posted it be sanctioned?

Would it be more or less libelous if it had the head of Chavez instead of Bush?

(Personally, I think it's a hoot- and any politician who can't take the heat should go fuck themselves)

[slackmaster]

128. Libel requires an intentional misstatement of fact

You haven't established that anyone has done that to Hugo Chavez.

Obvious lampoon and metaphor don't count as statements of fact.

Since this much has been established, we should move on to the next question - who are we to condemn Venezuela for taking their own action in establishing certain limits or constraints, when we here in the U.S. enjoy our own protections from malicious and often libellous attacks?

Except in extreme cases that have great tangible damage, like the criminal libel example you presented, libel is determined here strictly in civil courts. It's not a crime to make fun of someone. It's not a crime to denounce someone as a despot. Chavez's solution is to use the blunt force of the criminal justice system in order to squelch political speech that he doesn't like.

[The Straight Story]

59. So...you want to control the sinful ways of others and limit their ability to dissent?

Did you arrive here on the mayflower or something?

Anything to protect chavez.

And YES those billboards/etc are fine with me. If we cannot lampoon'/make fun of our leaders then we are in deep shit.

Maybe you like bowing down to the powers that be and making sure they don't get called names that might offend them, but they can kiss my ass if they think I would give up freedoms out of fear.

If they can't take the heat they should stay at home

[subsuelo]

62. What do you think libel laws are for?

Did you arrive from a Tea Party rally or something?

[slackmaster]

65. Libel laws allow people who have been intentionally harmed by written lies to seek compensation

Morphing a politician's face into Hitler isn't a lie. It's just an opinion. Libel laws do not apply to opinions, when expressed as such.

Any society that becomes afraid to allow people to freely express opinions is in deep, deep trouble (in my opinion).

[subsuelo]

85. Penticton man pleads guilty to hanging libellous posters

A Penticton man charged with the unusual offence of Criminal Libel has admitted to his crimes.

Police began investigating last December, after posters targeting a Penticton City Councilor and a local businessman were put up in several public places.

One of the victims was falsely accused of having links to the Nazi party. The other was wrongly accused of being a child rapist.

The suspect was caught on surveillance tape, and in August, 48-year-old Peter Guttormsson was charged with two counts of Defamatory Libel.

Guttormsson has pleaded guilty and returns to court in January for sentencing. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Penticton+pleads+guilty+hanging+libellous+posters/3868322/story.html#ixzz18meJ1SjX

Length of time spent Googling: 2 minutes. Try it sometime.

[slackmaster]

87. Not even close to a valid analogy. The fact that you don't understand the difference amuses me.

:rofl:

Length of time spent Googling: 2 minutes. Try it sometime.

Go to Google Images and search for obama hitler, then explain why NONE of the people who created or posted any of the images that come up has ever been sued for libel.

[subsuelo]

88. The difference between what?

Exactly what argument do you imagine yourself to be involved in?

[slackmaster]

89. The difference between libel, which is a form of defamation, and political satire, which is not

You really don't know what you're talking about.

[subsuelo]

93. No, it's very clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

My example from the very start has been a malicious portrayal of a political figure as Hitler, on the cover of a newspaper.

You and others keep pointing to forum message board comments, a billboard, and a satirical magazine cover. NONE of these compare to a false attack posted on the front page of a newspaper.

Why is this so unbelievably difficult for people to comprehend?

[slackmaster]

94. Newspapers are permitted to publish editorial opinions in the form of satire

Nobody has actually accused your hero Hugo Chavez of being an actual Nazi, a member of the Nazi party, or anything similar. Nobody said the image that you posted repeatedly was an actual representation of Hugo Chavez himself.

Posting an old picture of Charlie Chaplin dressed as Hitler doesn't rise to anywhere near the level of libel.

Why is this so unbelievably difficult for people to comprehend?

It must be tough being the only person on Earth who sees things as they really are.

:rofl:

[subsuelo]

95. Again, this is where the issue of malice comes in

Look, you can argue all you want that there is no malice involved. That's a separate argument. But the point remains - which you have as of yet failed to recognize - that if malice can be proven, that's where a case of libel can be made.

Let me know when you see the light.

btw - here's another one:



Read the headline: "Camina a la dictura" (heading towards dictatorship) - with Chavez making the Nazi salute.

If you think there's no malice involved on the part of the opposition newspapers in Venezuela, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[slackmaster]

96. I've never claimed that Chavez's political opponents did not have malice toward Chavez

Read the headline: "Camina a la dictura" (heading towards dictatorship)

If you think there's no malice involved on the part of the opposition newspapers in Venezuela, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course that headline is malicious. The people who published it don't like Hugo Chavez. It's an OPINION. Newspapers are permitted to publish opinions.

But the point remains - which you have as of yet failed to recognize - that if malice can be proven, that's where a case of libel can be made.

You are wrong. Proving libel requires proof of misstatements of FACT in addition to malicious intent. Malice alone is insufficient; and malice in political opinions is allowed.

If the paper said that Chavez buggers young boys every day before he goes to the office, and Chavez could prove that the editors knew that was not true, then he'd have a case for libel. But they haven't done that; they've merely stated an OPINION that he's a wannabe dictator.

[subsuelo]

99. I think you're starting to get it, at least

Here is another malicious altered photo - from the same newspaper



you know what Chavez was actually holding? A red rose:



Tell me, at what point for you would this descend into libel? At what point do you say ok enough is enough - this paper is deliberately pushing lies with intent to harm president Chavez? Or is everything under the sun fair game for you?

[slackmaster]

101. It's still an opinion piece.

I can't read the text, but I doubt that the paper is accusing Chavez of literally holding anyone at gunpoint.

Tell me, at what point for you would this descend into libel?

When something that is known to be false is presented as fact.

"Hugo Chavez blows dead dogs" might be actionable as libel.

"Hugo Chavez is holding the country hostage" would not be, because it's obviously a metaphor.

[subsuelo]

103. First of all, this is clearly beyond mere "opinion pieces", in my view.

An opinion piece is an editorial saying "I don't like Chavez, and if you ask me, Venezuela is heading towards dictatorship".

These front pages which I have shown you constitute something much more egregious and malicious, and my only argument all along has been that I think the actions of Tal Cual newspaper would be grounds for libel in the U.S.

But at least we have somehow moved closer to an understanding of the whole point of this. Now, you begin to admit - that there is a point at which a libel case can be made. That's my point. Suddenly the whole freedom of speech argument you find actually has some limitations, doesn't it. That is ultimately what I'm getting at.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. You sound like Boss Tweed complaining about Thomas Nast

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/bio.htm

Thomas Nast, 1840-1902

Following his death in 1902, Thomas Nast's obituary in Harper's Weekly stated, "He has been called, perhaps not with accuracy, but with substantial justice, the Father of American Caricature." Nast's campaign against New York City's political boss William Magear Tweed is legendary.....

...In 1868 Thomas Nast turned his attention to the corrupt New York City administration of Tammany Hall Democrats led by William Magear "Boss" Tweed. For the next three years Harper's Weekly and the New York Times campaigned against him. Nast's cartoons were so effective in depicting Tweed as a sleazy criminal that legend has it that the Boss dispatched his minions with the command, "Stop them damn pictures. I don't care what the papers write about me. My constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see the pictures." Voters ousted Tweed and his compatriots in November 1871. An irony of history is that when Tweed escaped from jail and fled to Spain in 1876, he was recognized and arrested by a customs official who did not read English but had seen Nast's Harper's Weekly caricatures of Tweed....

[slackmaster]

129. Yeah well, that's just, ya know, like, your opinion, man.

...my only argument all along has been that I think the actions of Tal Cual newspaper would be grounds for libel in the U.S.

(Italics added for emphasis.)

Indeed. You haven't established an objective basis for accusing Tal Cual of libel. It's your OPINION that some of their material has crossed over the line. I disagree.

[boppers]

116. So, that's the third image you have posted that you think should be illegal,

How should you be punished for your "crime spree"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. I don't have to Google to know that Penticton, BC is in CANADA, not the US

It would appear your knowledge of geography equals your knowledge of US libel law....

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Apparently, you think libel laws only apply to people who you disagree with.

Do a Google search. There are literally thousands of comparisons of Bush II with Hitler here at DU, 99.9% uncomplimentary in

the extreme. Do you want your standards of libel to apply to his critics?



Seems you want free speech for the 'nice' people, but not for those with whom you disagree.

[subsuelo]

81. You obviously haven't read a word I've said. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. I've read the one where you confuse 'libel' with 'Lèse majesté'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse majesté


Lèse majesté
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lèse majesté (Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offense against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

This behavior was first classified as a criminal offense against the dignity of the Roman republic in Ancient Rome. In time, as the Emperor became identified with the Roman state (the empire never formally became a monarchy), it was essentially applied to offenses against his person.<1> Though legally the princeps civitatis (his official title, roughly 'first citizen') could never become a sovereign, as the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were to be deified as divus, first posthumously but ultimately while reigning, and thus enjoyed the legal protection provided for the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was exchanged for Christianity, the monarchical tradition in all but name was well established.

Narrower conceptions of offenses against Majesty as offences against the crown predominated in the European kingdoms that emerged in the early medieval period. In feudal Europe, various real crimes were classified as lèse majesté even though not intentionally directed against the crown, such as counterfeiting because coins bear the monarch's effigy and/or coat of arms.

However, since the disappearance of absolute monarchy, this is viewed as less of a crime, although similar, more malicious acts could be considered treason. By analogy, as modern times saw republics emerging as great powers, a similar crime may be constituted, though not under this name, by any offence against the highest representatives of any state.....

[The Straight Story]

119. Then let him prove libel AFTER the fact, not before it (nt)

[NYC Liberal]

67. Was it removed by the government? nt

[cali]

109. Obama has had to deal with shit that bad

no, it's not acceptable. I still don't want it censored.

[IBEWVET]

75. What would DUer's think

of a law blocking disrespect of public officials, such as Bush. But on the other hand it is ok when Chavez pushes it. That is not a "progressive ideal"

[Dreamer Tatum]

78. Of COURSE it's progressive. We know this because a progressive did it, DUH. nt

[bemildred]

112. They should call it "Net Neutrality", then it would be OK. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. This is like watching Stalinists defend the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact

What was a vital sign of resistance when used against Bush is now a crime when directed towards El Caudillo de Caracas....