Chavez defends plan for Internet regulations

[Q]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40743752/ns/world_news-americas/


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.

"We aren't eliminating the Internet here ... nor censoring the Internet," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio program, "Hello, President." "What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, cybercrimes, through a law."

As examples, Chavez mentioned messages promoting drug use, prostitution and other crimes, and said his government has an obligation to take a stand. Questions remain about how the measures would be enforced.

Chavez also rebuffed criticism over the National Assembly's vote on Friday granting him special powers to enact laws by decree in a range of areas for the next year and a half.

Critics called it a power grab, noting that Chavez will be able to largely bypass the incoming National Assembly that takes office next month with a larger opposition contingent.

"They're calling me a dictator?" Chavez said, dismissing the criticism. "They're the dictators, those who are crazy for installing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie once again in Venezuela — but we'll never again allow them."

What do you guys think?

[synthesis]

True colors, etc, etc.

[Savage]

This is very disappointing.

[Widerstand]

"He's a true communist, it's only that the material conditions force him to take these steps."

"Freedom of speech is bourgeois liberalism."

etc.

[Dimentio]

Idiotic move. It is good if criticism, even idiotic one based on lies, is aired in the open. Then people would see exactly how crazy some of the opposition figures are.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On this same day, though, Obama caved in to the Internet companies re. Net Neutrality.

But yeah, this is a state move that can be used against left groups.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Disrespect[ing] public authorities"? "Anxiety"? Yeah, let's create stupidly vague laws that can easily be abused by those in power!

[Kiev Communard]

The incitement of religious and national/racial hatred should be banned, "disrespect for the authority", on the other hand...

[El Rojo]

depends on who decides what is and isn't allowed.

[Nolan]

Mountain, molehill, etc.

[RedSonRising]

I think it's stupid. Many countries have measures like this after all, but Venezuela can't afford to be stifling civic liberal policies when in the international hot-seat for criticisms on authoritarianism. Especially when a development period is when criticism is most needed by those within the country. I'm curious as to how this is implemented and by whom it is decided, but the whole "propaganda war" excuse doesn't sit well with me this time around.

[pranabjyoti]

From the post, my "liberal" comrades(!) superficially came to conclusion that Chavez want to control Internet to stop his criticism. I don't think he is that idiot to think so. After all, what we can think can be certainly be in his mind. After all, the source is an US based news agency and their is full probability that they misinterpreted the news totally and left liberals just jumped into the "criticism" based on news from a US based news agency.
Probably he is trying to control the XXX kind of sites. Please don't make comments or come to conclusion by reading "free media" based news snippets.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wait for the Venezuela Analysis to report on this.

MSNBC constantly has me thinking that Chavez really is dictatorial until real news sources counter the claims.

Why would Chavez increase free speech on tv and radio but decrease it on the net?

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5867



The laws clearly state certain conditions in which fines or punishments will be applied and in most cases the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) is the institution in charge of opening any proceedings, but in no cases is the president awarded the right to make decisions.

Other opposition media have said the Social Responsibility Law will give the government “control over the internet”, will “seriously limit coverage of ideas, debate, and pluralism”, and “Chavez will increase his powers and impose internet censorship” (EntornoInteligente, El Nacional, and Clarin).

PSUV legislator Augusto Montiel said opposition sectors had begun a campaign against the law. “It’s just an expression of the sad, miserable, sabotaging opposition that aims to hinder Venezuelan social and economic development,” he said.

“Further, [the opposition] lies to the world...through its...media, saying that there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela. That is totally false,” he continued, assuring that there is no single internet connection point in the law. The opposition has argued that the government would try to use such a point to control internet content.

Villalba also stressed that the reformed law will not block social networks like Twitter and Facebook, nor search engines but explained that the reform expands “the purposes of the law to electronic media. If a blog publishes a call for assassination, that person must be held responsible, likewise the person who administers the site as they are supposed to be making good use of that outlet”.

The Social Responsibility Law was first created on 7 December 2004. Conatel has investigated and sanctioned media on various occasions for breaking the Social Responsibility law. Recently in January, it closed six national cable television channels for non-compliance with the law, such as failing to broadcast a government announcement.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Intentions count for nothing if the law is poorly drafted. All it takes is for some obstructive bureaucrat to take a dislike to someone and a dangerous precedent is set.

Of course this is not taking into account the fact that all governments, even supposedly socialist ones, value their own survival over the freedom of their citizens.

[Property Is Robbery]

I think it's stupid. Many countries have measures like this after all, but Venezuela can't afford to be stifling civic liberal policies when in the international hot-seat for criticisms on authoritarianism. Especially when a development period is when criticism is most needed by those within the country. I'm curious as to how this is implemented and by whom it is decided, but the whole "propaganda war" excuse doesn't sit well with me this time around.
Could you name some other countries? It'd help me in debates :thumbup1:

[Mannimarco]

Drug abuse?


FUCKING REACTIONARY PIECE OF SHIT. I TRUSTED YOU, CHAVEZ.

[gorillafuck]

If this is true, then this is a terrible, terrible move.

[Palingenisis]

On this same day, though, Obama caved in to the Internet companies re. Net Neutrality.

But yeah, this is a state move that can be used against left groups.

Yeah but all the absolute shite the net gives us.....MonkeySmashesHeaven, Libertarianism, National "Maoism", National "Anarchism", donkey porn, etc, etc....

The thing is any lula can open a website and start waffling on....Not that I think that Venuzela is a socialist state but I imagine that a socialist state would place restrictions on it.

[KurtFF8]

This seems bad indeed, but I'm also going to remain a little hopefully that msnbc isn't the best source here.

[Widerstand]

The thing is any lula can open a website and start waffling on

Yeah and?

[gorillafuck]

The thing is any lula can open a website and start waffling on....Not that I think that Venuzela is a socialist state but I imagine that a socialist state would place restrictions on it.
What causes you to imagine that? Ignoring what the practical consequences of this sort of policy would be, do you really think that MSH could be a threat to workers power?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Intentions count for nothing if the law is poorly drafted. All it takes is for some obstructive bureaucrat to take a dislike to someone and a dangerous precedent is set.

Of course this is not taking into account the fact that all governments, even supposedly socialist ones, value their own survival over the freedom of their citizens.

In a Third World, worker-friendly "managed democracy," it would be crucial that such a Caesarian law evoking Bismarck and Putin against bourgeois and/or liberal opposition not be poorly drafted.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am opposed to any restrictions when it comes to the internet, in terms of content that falls within the law.

It's a slippery slope - the internet thus far has been, largely, a beacon of potential freedom and net neutrality and non-hierarchical control of the internet has been a key feature of this.

As I say, it's a slippery slope to give the government, in general, powers like this regarding the internet. After all, today's opposition is tomorrow's government.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of course this is not taking into account the fact that all governments, even supposedly socialist ones, value their own survival over the freedom of their citizens.

This is the key line, really.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think this shows the bigger contradiction that exists in the Bolivarian movement.

Chavez has been responsive to the people's demands against capitalism and Imperialism, which is something very democratic.

But at the same time this reforms are very top down and somewhat bureaucratic. For example once Isidor was nationalized something which the workers demanded and did support, they were stripped of their control of the plant.

Its not for example that Chavez hasn't supported more grassroots projects such as some worker's owned factories and the community councils which were given money to manage their own affairs according to what they voted on.

The unions in Venezuela need to form their own confederation as the one they had is controlled by the bosses and the working class at large needs to either demand that the right-wing and opportunists elements be purged from the PSUV or form their own workers party in order to remain independent in the class struggle. That way they are free to support Chavez on whatever he does good and oppose him on reactionaries polices.

I think sooner or later another Revolution needs to happen in Venezuela were Chavez either completely commits itself to the workers movement or he becomes and obstacle himself.

[pranabjyoti]

I first want to know the law in detail and then comment. I don't want to jump into debate based on imperialist backed news agencies newsfeed.

[Fulanito de Tal]

As examples, Chavez mentioned messages promoting drug use, prostitution and other crimes, and said his government has an obligation to take a stand.
These are bullshit examples to gain the approval of the population. I would like to see how it is put into action before criticizing it. There may be something else that they are using these restrictions for that we are not aware of.

[Widerstand]

These are bullshit examples to gain the approval of the population. I would like to see how it is put into action before criticizing it. There may be something else that they are using these restrictions for that we are not aware of.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll only do legitimate things like censoring government critics.

[Jazzhands]

The quality of the stuff that comes out of the Western media on Chavez is astonishingly bad, and it's well known that they get a huge part of all their stories through the State Department's talking points. It's always extremely biased, always focused more on what the opposition says than what Chavez actually did, etc. Sometimes there are even blatant factual inaccuracies.

So I don't think anyone here should be jumping to conclusions about Chavez. Until the Venezuelan side comes out, I'll be holding my breath. Western reports about Chavez being a dictator should be examined very carefully for bullshit and viewed with a great deal of skepticism, unless the Venezuelan media actively comes out and says "LONG LIVE SHINY HAPPY PEOPLES LEADER HUGO CHAVEZ," etc.

[synthesis]

The quality of the stuff that comes out of the Western media on Chavez is astonishingly bad, and it's well known that they get a huge part of all their stories through the State Department's talking points. It's always extremely biased, always focused more on what the opposition says than what Chavez actually did, etc. Sometimes there are even blatant factual inaccuracies.

So I don't think anyone here should be jumping to conclusions about Chavez. Until the Venezuelan side comes out, I'll be holding my breath. Western reports about Chavez being a dictator should be examined very carefully for bullshit and viewed with a great deal of skepticism, unless the Venezuelan media actively comes out and says "LONG LIVE SHINY HAPPY PEOPLES LEADER HUGO CHAVEZ," etc.

I agree with you in general, but I'm not sure how much that applies to this specific scenario. Why would the State Department try to attack Chavez based on his support for policies that they themselves would like to enact?

Then again, that whole Verizon/Google thing might accomplish the same thing, without the political repercussions which accompany government regulation in the United States. I guess it would demonstrate the efficacy of privatizing censorship.

[RED DAVE]

It'a bullshit, and anyone who supports it should re-examine their commitment to socialism.

RED DAVE

[Chairman Wow]

Microsoft-NBC reports that a world leader critical of capitalism and favourable to socialist reforms is introducing laws to 'restrict freedoms'. I am shocked.

I bet that the same news source would report possible monitoring of the internet by the US administration as 'in the best interests of national security' rather than a restriction of freedoms.

[~Spectre]

Microsoft-NBC reports that a world leader critical of capitalism and favourable to socialist reforms is introducing laws to 'restrict freedoms'. I am shocked.

I bet that the same news source would report possible monitoring of the internet by the US administration as 'in the best interests of national security' rather than a restriction of freedoms.


Sadly, just because they whitewash the crimes of the United States, doesn't mean that this particular external criticism is incorrect. Sure it's not going to turn Venezuela into an Orwellian dystopia, but if the facts as reported are correct, then this is definitely a step in the wrong direction that all should oppose.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well this could be the first step in what many nations vying for socialism before went through defending themselves against opposition. It will backfire.

Despite this, the administration has done tremendous things. I hope the people of Venezuela fight this, if true, but that doesn't negate all the other things happening in the country.

[pranabjyoti]

I agree with you in general, but I'm not sure how much that applies to this specific scenario. Why would the State Department try to attack Chavez based on his support for policies that they themselves would like to enact?

Then again, that whole Verizon/Google thing might accomplish the same thing, without the political repercussions which accompany government regulation in the United States. I guess it would demonstrate the efficacy of privatizing censorship.
That's called hypocrisy and it's nothing new to "western" powers.
Sorry to say, but this thread is now full of BS, because no Chavez "critics" have so far produces any kind of reliable source other than the CNBC and Fox News kind. This thread is an example how quickly "liberal lefts" jump into conclusion based on news from imperialist backed news agencies.
N.B, NO WARNING TO THE THREAD WRITERS TO THIS THREAD FROM ANY MODERATOR. STRANGE!

[Ovi]

The news is on the web for some time on tens of websites. The law is quite draconian (http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/12/22/venezuela-the-bill-to-regulate-internet-has-been-approved/):


The final text, which has been leaked through the net, still retains the rule providing that Internet service providers are responsible for all content accessible to its users, and are obliged to have mechanisms in order to restrict those messages prohibited by the law.
It also remains the prohibition of all content that:
1. Encourages and promote hatred and intolerance for religious, political, and gender difference, by racism or xenophobia.
2. Incites or promote and/or justify the crime.
3. Constitutes war propaganda.
4. Foster unrest among the citizenship or disturb public order.
5. Refuses to recognize the government's authority.
6. Induces to murder.
7. Incite or promote the violation of existing law.
8. Promote, justify or incite public disturbances
9. Use anonimity.
10. Disregards the legitimate authority
No anonymity, eh? Goodbye tor, goodbye revleft, welcome to the new Venezuela, where only Chavez has freedom of speech.

[synthesis]

That's called hypocrisy and it's nothing new to "western" powers.
Sorry to say, but this thread is now full of BS, because no Chavez "critics" have so far produces any kind of reliable source other than the CNBC and Fox News kind. This thread is an example how quickly "liberal lefts" jump into conclusion based on news from imperialist backed news agencies.
N.B, NO WARNING TO THE THREAD WRITERS TO THIS THREAD FROM ANY MODERATOR. STRANGE!

Why would we be warned for anything posted here? And why would we be "liberal-left" if we thought it wouldn't be the most outlandish thing we'd ever heard?

[pranabjyoti]

Why would we be warned for anything posted here? And why would we be "liberal-left" if we thought it wouldn't be the most outlandish thing we'd ever heard?
Nothing outlandish. How can people call themselves "left" and jump into posting bad comments against a comparatively progressive and anti-imperialist leader based on newsfeed from a imperialist backed news agency?
you call yourself left and simultaneously depend on "imperialist backed" "neutral" media for information on an anti-imperialist leader. THAT'S WHY YOU ARE LIBERAL-LEFT. Just look at the number of messages even before the having any proper idea about the law.

[Widerstand]

Nothing outlandish. How can people call themselves "left" and jump into posting bad comments against a comparatively progressive and anti-imperialist leader based on newsfeed from a imperialist backed news agency?
you call yourself left and simultaneously depend on "imperialist backed" "neutral" media for information on an anti-imperialist leader. THAT'S WHY YOU ARE LIBERAL-LEFT. Just look at the number of messages even before the having any proper idea about the law.

Because like, if people say something bad about your Dear Leader they must A) lie and B) be wrong, right? Right. All hail the unfailable Venezuelan Socialist Project!

[RED DAVE]

Nothing outlandish. How can people call themselves "left" and jump into posting bad comments against a comparatively progressive and anti-imperialist leader based on newsfeed from a imperialist backed news agency?Because we're human, and we look for news wherever we can find it, and, frankly, it sounds just like the kind of bullshit Chavez is capable of.


you call yourself left and simultaneously depend on "imperialist backed" "neutral" media for information on an anti-imperialist leader.We do the best we can. It's Chavez's responsibility, with the vast resources he has, to refute it if it's wrong.


THAT'S WHY YOU ARE LIBERAL-LEFT.Nonsense. It's why Chavez is a social democrat.


Just look at the number of messages even before the having any proper idea about the law.We do the best we can, and it's best to be extremely watchful about this kind of shit rather than complacent. I heard the same arguments about Castro when he started throwing enemies of his regime, include revolutionaries, in jail.

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Because like, if people say something bad about your Dear Leader they must A) lie and B) be wrong, right? Right. All hail the unfailable Venezuelan Socialist Project!
Well, those who start to cry on an anti-imperialist person based on imperialist backed media and call themselves "socialist", I just want to stay away from them.

[pranabjyoti]

Because we're human, and we look for news wherever we can find it, and, frankly, it sounds just like the kind of bullshit Chavez is capable of.
Well, you believe in that news because that matches your idea about Chavez.

We do the best we can. It's Chavez's responsibility, with the vast resources he has, to refute it if it's wrong.
It's your responsibility too to get the proper information. It's not Chavez's sole responsibility to e-mail or contact every person to prove his points. He stated it in his proper place, it's your duty to collect that and compare.

Nonsense. It's why Chavez is a social democrat.

We do the best we can, and it's best to be extremely watchful about this kind of shit rather than complacent. I heard the same arguments about Castro when he started throwing enemies of his regime, include revolutionaries, in jail.
RED DAVE
What kind of revolutionaries, MIAMI BASED?

[Nolan]

If the Venezuelan government wasn't full of oligarchs and their stooges this wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[RadioRaheem84]

Because like, if people say something bad about your Dear Leader they must A) lie and B) be wrong, right? Right. All hail the unfailable Venezuelan Socialist Project!


Oh, come off it. The point is not to dismiss the entire project going on in Venezuela because of one law that we disagree with.

The anti-Chavists are salivating.

Stop acting like people who support the Bolivarian project worship Chavez because they were a little skeptical about the mainstream press, a press that fully backed and supported his illegitimate ousters.

Fucking ridiculous.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If the Venezuelan government wasn't full of oligarchs and their stooges this wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I disagree. Arbitrary and self-serving restrictions on expression are bad no matter who issues them. The easier it becomes to censor those one disagrees with, the more likely it is that such powers will be used, no matter what the truth is.

Does Venezuala not have laws against libel and slander? If they do, why not just prosecute people who perpetuate patent falsehoods under such laws?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't suppose this thread would be the right place to discuss Lars Lih's rather critical view on "state monopoly campaignism," would it?

[4 Leaf Clover]

big deal

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't suppose this thread would be the right place to discuss Lars Lih's rather critical view on "state monopoly campaignism," would it?
I think that only you can be the judge of that, ultimately. Does it have anything to do with Augustan-Brutonian manifold undulations? If so, it may have some relevance. If not, then it is unlikely.

[TC]

he's not curtailing free speech he's enforcing criminal laws when criminals make use of the internet - in other words doing what every other country in the world does.

The bourgeois media just spins it this way because attacking Chavez as a "dictator" (which he's not) is better rhetoric than attacking him for what really drives them crazy: that he is a socialist.

[~Spectre]

That other countries do this, is part of our criticism, not a rebuttal of it.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Didnt the FCC just pass some faux Net Neutrality bill that will allow telecoms to control and charge depending on your internet usage? Isnt this too Internet regulations? For profit? Doesnt Google and facebook already track and collude with government to observe you? That being said what Chavez is doing is not productive either; and, amounts to the same. Governments are inherently fascist.

From OP link:

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities....

[Lucretia]

Well, you believe in that news because that matches your idea about Chavez.

It's your responsibility too to get the proper information. It's not Chavez's sole responsibility to e-mail or contact every person to prove his points. He stated it in his proper place, it's your duty to collect that and compare.

What kind of revolutionaries, MIAMI BASED?

Yes, because anybody who might think a bad thought about your beloved leader is obviously a pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist poser. Any source reporting that your beloved leader is doing something imperfectly must necessarily be an untrustworthy, pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist rag.

Where do I sign up for this cult of personality?

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, because anybody who might think a bad thought about your beloved leader is obviously a pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist poser. Any source reporting that your beloved leader is doing something imperfectly must necessarily be an untrustworthy, pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist rag.

Where do I sign up for this cult of personality?

You can sign up for it at the same stand where you subscribe to your bullshit sectarianism. Forgive the other comrades for being a bit skeptical of the mainstream press that usually emits lies about "dear leaders".

Regardless, I think most comrades in here who support the Bolivarian movements are skeptical about the law, as am I, but to mock people for first being skeptical about the reporting is just a plain asshole maneuver.

What is with the sarcastic "pro-imperialist" quip too? Are people that jaded about the theories about imperialism and capitalism that we shouldn't be skeptical at first?

Why are people mocking other comrades for insisting that this may be misreporting on their behalf?

Goddamn, I swear, sometimes I think that leftists these days are aching for acceptance into the mainstream or something.

[Widerstand]

You can sign up for it at the same stand where you subscribe to your bullshit sectarianism. Forgive the other comrades for being a bit skeptical of the mainstream press that usually emits lies about "dear leaders".

Regardless, I think most comrades in here who support the Bolivarian movements are skeptical about the law, as am I, but to mock people for first being skeptical about the reporting is just a plain asshole maneuver.

What is with the sarcastic "pro-imperialist" quip too? Are people that jaded about the theories about imperialism and capitalism that we shouldn't be skeptical at first?

Why are people mocking other comrades for insisting that this may be misreporting on their behalf?

Goddamn, I swear, sometimes I think that leftists these days are aching for acceptance into the mainstream or something.

Because your comrades aren't insisting that this may be "misreporting", but rather insist that this MUST be wrong, and that everyone who dares to believe it is in an imperialist liberal.

You know, you sects complain about sectarianism all day long, yet your comrades are quick to namecall everyone who raises critique against them.

Now if you have some actual refutation of this news source's version (which should be easy, since they MUST be wrong, right?) I'd be thrilled to hear it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Who says that that I need some refutation of a source that I believe might be correct, the point is that it is OK to first be skeptical about the source. If some comrades in here insist that it might be wrong, that is OK too, I am sure until they have their reasons but for the most part I highly doubt they would continue to be so damn skeptical if no material refutation was found.


More often than not the press are wrong about the Bolivarian Revolution, sometimes dead wrong to the point of banality. This just seemed like another instance in which it might have been the same sensationalist style.

Instead we have grade A assholes in here insisting that anyone skeptical, to whatever extent, is worshiping a dear leader and mocking the fact that there is a bias pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist press, as if it's passe to think such things.

Then guys like you get upset at the namecalling that ensues. Well shit, excuse me if I get upset about idiots insisting that a little skepticism is akin to worship, cult personality and "cliche" to mention pro-capitalist press.

Get over yourself, your reconciliation with the mainstream will soon happen and soon you will vote Soc Dem. You will be liked again at dinner parties. Just be patient, and do not take it out on us in the meantime. :thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

Because like, if people say something bad about your Dear Leader they must A) lie and B) be wrong, right? Right. All hail the unfailable Venezuelan Socialist Project!


I mean, look at this shit ^. Was this really necessary? Do you feel vindicated about the one press source that might be correct after all attempts before did not pan out?

You guys: Cult of personality, dear leader complex, "imperialist" media is cliche,

Only one person in this whole thread was adamantly skeptical and pursued his argument vehemently. Everyone else, including I, who are supporters of the Venezuelan Revolution, said this is a bad move for Chavez.

So do not come in here with that bullshit about "my comrades" are acting as though this is totally false and insisting on calling you guys "liberals" for not repeating the line.

You were just being an asshole, admit it, you will feel better about it later.

[Widerstand]

Who says that that I need some refutation of a source that I believe might be correct, the point is that it is OK to first be skeptical about the source.

Yes okay, so, what do you base your skepsis on? Do you have any evidence that the information is wrong or not? If not, how come you come in here namecalling people as pro-imperialist and liberal? How come you can brush off this information as wrong when you can't present anything indicating the contrary?



If some comrades in here insist that it might be wrong, that is OK too, I am sure until they have their reasons but for the most part I highly doubt they would continue to be so damn skeptical if no material refutation was found.

So where is it? We're waiting.



More often than not the press are wrong about the Bolivarian Revolution, sometimes dead wrong to the point of banality. This just seemed like another instance in which it might have been the same sensationalist style.

Ok, again, if this is the case I'm sure there's plenty of sources that can refute this source.



Instead we have grade A assholes in here insisting that anyone skeptical, to whatever extent, is worshiping a dear leader and mocking the fact that there is a bias pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist press, as if it's passe to think such things.

And how exactly are your comrades not insisting that anyone skeptical about Chavez and Venezuela is pro-imperialist and liberal?



Then guys like you get upset at the namecalling that ensues. Well shit, excuse me if I get upset about idiots insisting that a little skepticism is akin to worship, cult personality and "cliche" to mention pro-capitalist press.

Refer to above comment. Skepticism about Chavez MUST make us pro-imperialist, huh?



Get over yourselves, your reconciliation with the mainstream will soon happen and soon you will vote Soc Dem. You will be liked again at dinner parties. Just be patient, and do not take it out on us in the meantime. :thumbup1:

"I mean, look at this shit ^. Was this really necessary?"

Not to mention the obvious irony, since Chavez is very much a Soc Dem.


Do you feel vindicated about the one press source that might be correct after all attempts before did not pan out?

I have no fucking idea what you are saying, care to rephrase?



You guys: Cult of personality, dear leader complex, "imperialist" media is cliche,

You guys: imperialist media, capitalist lies, anti-socialists


Only one person in this whole thread was adamantly skeptical and pursued his argument vehemently. Everyone else, including I, who are supporters of the Venezuelan Revolution, said this is a bad move for Chavez.

Yeah and? No one forced you to come to their defense.



So do not come in here with that bullshit about "my comrades" are acting as though this is totally false and insisting on calling you guys "liberals" for not repeating the line.

Actually they insist on calling us liberals, and in fact you just called us Soc Dems.



You were just being an asshole, admit it, you will feel better about it later.

Rather be an asshole than be stuck in Hugo's.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes okay, so, what do you base your skepsis on? Do you have any evidence that the information is wrong or not? If not, how come you come in here namecalling people as pro-imperialist and liberal? How come you can brush off this information as wrong when you can't present anything indicating the contrary?


What a moron! I never called anyone who believed in the mainstream source to an imperialist lackey.

I did cite an article that explained the situation further and the measures are clearly akin to measures in place in the rest of the Western world, but I insisted that is something that should still not be celebrated, as just because it is replicated in the Western world, it doesn't make it sound policy.



Ok, again, if this is the case I'm sure there's plenty of sources that can refute this source.


I said that in this case, the source might be correct, although a bit on the sensationalist side considering that many measures are also measures in Western nations. But yes, the point is that there is no source than can really counter the original in the OP.

Again, what is your bloody point other than you do not have one.



And how exactly are your comrades not insisting that anyone skeptical about Chavez and Venezuela is pro-imperialist and liberal?


Because no one here except one, insisted so, unlike the other side which insisted anyone the least bit skeptical or supportive of the Bolivarian Revolution must be licking Chavez's boots or is using a "cliche" of labeling the media pro-capitalist.



Refer to above comment. Skepticism about Chavez MUST make us pro-imperialist, huh?


How dense can you be? Where was this repeated in anything I said? I myself was skeptical about the policy measures taken. Go back and read my posts before you embarrass yourself any further.


I mean, look at this shit ^. Was this really necessary?"

Not to mention the obvious irony, since Chavez is very much a Soc Dem.

A little more to the left than a Soc Dem, but of course to you this is unclear.



I have no fucking idea what you are saying, care to rephrase?


I am saying you went giddy as a school girl that there was finally a measure by Chavez in which there was no concrete defense about. A measure that even pro-Chavists could not all agree on and you salivated over the chance to piss all over the skeptics.


You guys: imperialist media, capitalist lies, anti-socialists


Right. I forgot it's passe or cliche to think that the media is not pro-imperialist, lies for capitalists and is vehemently anti-socialist. :rolleyes:


Yeah and? No one forced you to come to their defense.


Well then continue on with the childish shit fest that you think you're entitled to. By all means if it you're in this much of a denial about asshole-ish rants than do not let me stop you.


Actually they insist on calling us liberals, and in fact you just called us Soc Dems.


I called you a person who acts like he is desperate for some mainstream acceptance, and thus flails people who may be skeptical about mainstream sources. I was floored that you mocked the insistence that the media is anti-socialist/pro-capitalist as passe or cliche. I mean what kind of shit is that to say?


Rather be an asshole than be stuck in Hugo's.


Clearly, oh by all means, clearly you don't know what you're talking about and this quip was a final attempt to be witty over being right. I mean it's quite laughable to insist that considering the countless posts by comrades in here insisting that Bolivarian Revolution does not start or end with Chavez, not to mention the skepticism and the posts aimed at criticizing the bureaucratic elements in the movement.

I mean what a shallow rebuttal, just awful.

Come one Widerstand, you can do better, I mean no one can do asshole better than you. Try again. :thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

Unless you agree with standards for media control imposed by other Western nations, then there is no real concrete socialist defense for this policy, in my opinion. I hope the Venezuelan people will challenge the administration on this, for if the opposition ever gained more strength they could certainly wield these laws in their favor. Right now, the media is having a field day reporting this as another "dictatorial" power grab by Chavez. As questionable as it may be, the policy does not reflect a Stalinesque autocratic move.

This is my position.

Widerstand: Quit licking Chavez's nut, dude. Oh, I am so witty.

[Widerstand]

What a moron! I never called anyone who believed in the mainstream source to an imperialist lackey.

And I have never talked about you until you started defending your comrade. Come again.



I did cite an article that explained the situation further and the measures are clearly akin to measures in place in the rest of the Western world, but I insisted that is something that should still not be celebrated, as just because it is replicated in the Western world, it doesn't make it sound policy.

I think that not despite, but precisely because it is a replica of western pro-capitalist, authoritarian measures it is not a sound policy for a supposedly leftist state.



I said that in this case, the source might be correct, although a bit on the sensationalist side considering that many measures are also measures in Western nations. But yes, the point is that there is no source than can really counter the original in the OP.

So how can you agree with your comrade who called all of us pro-imperialists for judging by this source and criticizing the move?



Again, what is your bloody point other than you do not have one.

My point is that a move to censor those who disagree with "public authorities" is hardly anything that will further the leftist cause.



Because no one here except one, insisted so, unlike the other side which insisted anyone the least bit skeptical or supportive of the Bolivarian Revolution must be licking Chavez's boots or is using a "cliche" of labeling the media pro-capitalist.

Well I for one have never talked about it being a cliche. Undoubtedly most of the media is pro-establishment, which includes pro-imperialist. This does not mean that everything they say is false. Your comrade just wants it to be false so they don't have to face the fact that Chavez is not the Marx-sent savior to end all exploitation.



How dense can you be? Where was this repeated in anything I said? I myself was skeptical about the policy measures taken. Go back and read my posts before you embarrass yourself any further.

Yeah, and I have originally not talked about you. But to see you jumping to your comrades defense like this leads me to believe you agree with them.



A little more to the left than a Soc Dem, but of course to you this is unclear.

And what does "a little more to the left" mean, exactly? Does he not want to reach socialism through reform? Does he want to reach socialism at all? Does he want communism?



I am saying you went giddy as a school girl that there was finally a measure by Chavez in which there was no concrete defense about. A measure that even pro-Chavists could not all agree on and you salivated over the chance to piss all over the skeptics.

You make it seem as if I was waiting for a chance to discredit Chavez, when in fact I have never supported nor been terribly excited about him. I have already accepted that there are people willing to cheer for anyone calling themselves socialist. You can be that way, I don't mind. But don't throw shit at me for disagreeing.



Right. I forgot it's passe or cliche to think that the media is not pro-imperialist, lies for capitalists and is vehemently anti-socialist. :rolleyes:

Where did I say this?



Well then continue on with the childish shit fest that you think you're entitled to. By all means if it you're in this much of a denial about asshole-ish rants than do not let me stop you.

Where did I pull an assholeish rant? I'm just slightly amused that my first post in this topic was about how pro-Chavez people will dismiss all criticism of this as "liberalism", which is exactly what happened.



I called you a person who acts like he is desperate for some mainstream acceptance, and thus flails people who may be skeptical about mainstream sources. I was floored that you mocked the insistence that the media is anti-socialist/pro-capitalist as passe or cliche. I mean what kind of shit is that to say?

Where am I desperate for mainstream acceptance? What the fuck do you know about my political activity or their mainstream acceptance?

In fact, talking about being childish, aren't you and your lot with this "liberalism" bullshitting the childish ones here? I don't believe that communists should censor their critics. Does this make me childish? Why? Because some media claims to support free speech (nevermind that they actually don't)? Aren't you the childish one for calling everything that grants some freedoms "liberal" and per se disagreeing with everything "liberal?" I'm not childish just because I don't dislike everything the mainstream likes.



Clearly, oh by all means, clearly you don't know what you're talking about and this quip was a final attempt to be witty over being right. I mean it's quite laughable to insist that considering the countless posts by comrades in here insisting that Bolivarian Revolution does not start or end with Chavez, not to mention the skepticism and the posts aimed at criticizing the bureaucratic elements in the movement.

Where have I attacked any posts criticizing the bureaucratic elements? Or anyone disagreeing with Chavez? Care to find that, please?



Come one Widerstand, you can do better, I mean no one can do asshole better than you. Try again. :thumbup1:

Why am I an asshole? Because I defend against being called a reactionary, liberal or pro-imperialist over disagreement with Chavez' politics and the nature of the Venezuelan state? Get a fucking grip dude.

[RadioRaheem84]

Again, nothing of substance. My last post before this one said it all and my position. Comrades in here are not bootlickers but have a healthy skepticism of a press that stretches things out to complete banality.

The quip about me being against anything that grants freedom and calling it liberal, shows you have a horrible characterization of me and most of the Leninists on this board. I have never seen most of the comrades in here bootlicking but instead have seen a general fond for the revolution from a popular point of view based on the base that calls for reforms to take on a more socialist bent.

The mere fact that the media tried to paint this enactment of policy as a Stalinesque curtailing of freedoms is outlandish based upon their own nation's control of media as well. The standards of which are the same as what is being allowed in Venezuela. The point of contention, for me at least, was that the standards in the West are nothing to applaud and for that matter nothing to applaud when an opposition gains strength and uses those laws to their favor.


Your comrade just wants it to be false so they don't have to face the fact that Chavez is not the Marx-sent savior to end all exploitation.


Again with this characterization that Chavez = Bolivarian Revolution, when countless times comrades in here have insisted otherwise and generally support the base over Chavez.


Where have I attacked any posts criticizing the bureaucratic elements? Or anyone disagreeing with Chavez? Care to find that, please?

You just did with me regardless of the fact of my opposition to this policy in my initial posts. And you still characterize my support of the Venezuelan people as Chavez bootlicking or Marxist-savior worship.

I just do not understand why you couldn't accept criticism by skeptics, debate them in a manner that didn't characterize them as bootlicking Chavists, when the record of many comrades in here shows the total opposite. So what if they were skeptical of a press that is vehemently against Chavez, does that make them bootlickers?

The debate could've gone into a great direction debating the vitality of media standards set by the West and the hypocrisy of the West for when those same standards are applied by people they hate.

But instead it delved into inane childish drivel.

[Lucretia]

You can sign up for it at the same stand where you subscribe to your bullshit sectarianism. Forgive the other comrades for being a bit skeptical of the mainstream press that usually emits lies about "dear leaders".

Regardless, I think most comrades in here who support the Bolivarian movements are skeptical about the law, as am I, but to mock people for first being skeptical about the reporting is just a plain asshole maneuver.

What is with the sarcastic "pro-imperialist" quip too? Are people that jaded about the theories about imperialism and capitalism that we shouldn't be skeptical at first?

Why are people mocking other comrades for insisting that this may be misreporting on their behalf?

Goddamn, I swear, sometimes I think that leftists these days are aching for acceptance into the mainstream or something.

Sectarian? Really? Which "sect" do I belong to in your estimation? It sounds to me like you're using this sectarian label so broadly that it stands in for any behavior you don't like. It kind of loses its force when you do that.

Skepticism is a healthy attitude, and I am skeptical about all media reports about issues where there would likely be a built-in bias. But I am not seeing skepticism in this thread. I am seeing people who have no idea whether the report is true declaring it to be untrue, as if it must be untrue because otherwise it would reflect poorly on somebody they want to like and support. The existence of bias does not necessarily mean the factual content of a report is incorrect, and it is the responsibility of critical consumers of information to discern the factual content from the exaggeration and lies by doing things like checking multiple sources throughout different countries.

The problem with cults of personality is that they preclude skepticism about leadership and the use of power, and deaden people's ability to make this key discernment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with cults of personality is that they preclude skepticism about leadership and the use of power, and deaden people's ability to make this key discernment.

That's a general rule, but it's not universal. The personality cult of Ferdinand Lassalle inspired class-conscious German workers to political work and heroism and fed the worker-class movement.

[Jose Gracchus]

That hardly makes it a desirable form of 'inspiration'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That hardly makes it a desirable form of 'inspiration'.

I don't like his cult when he was alive. I do sympathize with the cult after his death, such as the Italian socialist naming of boys and girls Lassalo and Marxina, respectively.

[Fulanito de Tal]

It's a slippery slope - the internet thus far has been, largely, a beacon of potential freedom and net neutrality and non-hierarchical control of the internet has been a key feature of this.

Access to the internet is controlled with most of us living in the absurd first world.

[Q]

I am opposed to any restrictions when it comes to the internet, in terms of content that falls within the law.

It's a slippery slope - the internet thus far has been, largely, a beacon of potential freedom and net neutrality and non-hierarchical control of the internet has been a key feature of this.

As I say, it's a slippery slope to give the government, in general, powers like this regarding the internet. After all, today's opposition is tomorrow's government.

The internet's infrastructure is very much centralised. You can't access the net if you aren't connected to some ISP. The internet wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the backbones. Most of the WWW runs on the servers of hosting companies. The DNS structure is by definition hierarchical. Etc. The idea that we have a potential of non-hierarchical control is a very much idealist notion under the current circumstances.

That said, there are of course projects that try to tackle exactly such problems (decentrality of storage, decentrality of traffic, strong anonymity, etc) of which Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/) is probably the most interesting project.

[Black Sheep]

In chavist venezuela..
things start looking like soviet russia..:(