RCTV
RCTV in Venezuela has closed and the debate rages. Both sides argue vehemently while pretty much ignoring or sidestepping contrary evidence. I wish I could sell self-righteousness because I would make a bundle. Would that be consistent with 21st Century Socialism?
Some points to think about:
This is a straightforward “freedom of the press” issue
--No. Even Chávez critics agree the station openly supported the overthrow of an elected president, so let’s drop that façade. It is therefore different and not just the closure of a station because it criticizes the government. However, Chávez clearly hopes to intimidate his critics and this move will lead to more self-censorship, at least on TV.
RCTV would’ve automatically survived in the U.S. or other places with more freedom of the press
--No. Give me a break. However, it wouldn’t have been shut down simply on the whims of the president (though unfortunately with the Patriot Act I guess anything is possible). Accountability is absent here—an appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, but it has already been packed by Chávez loyalists. The appeal is in fact continuing, but the court did not accept the argument that RCTV should remain on the air in the meantime.
There is no freedom of the press in Venezuela.
--No. There is strident print press which criticizes Chávez all the time. However, TV is getting softer and softer.
The outcry about RCTV is a U.S. effort to destabilize Venezuela. Chávez recently claimed this would include the infiltration of Colombian paramilitaries.
--This one is plain nutty.
According to the Venezuelan government, this is just a “regulatory” matter and has nothing to do with politics. As Venezuela’s Ambassador to the U.S. says, “While the decision has been distorted to make it seem like Venezuela’s government is closing a television station, this is simply a regulatory matter.”
--Oh, good, I had thought they were actually closing a station and it had something to do with the 2002 coup. Thanks for clearing that up.
57 comments:
Greg, I think you are skirting a few issues about the closure of RCTV.
1. RCTV was wrong (in my opinion) to not cover the events during April 12-13 2002 properly or at all. However, Venevision, Televen, and Globovision all did the same. By the same token RCTV is allowed to broadcast or not broadcast news as they see fit (you and I may disagree with it).
2. Let us not forget the media blackout Chavez forced on the nation on April 11, 2002. Search google video "La Cadena". Chavez constantly uses his power to blackout the media with his "Cadenas" sometimes daily and multi hour long.
So if we close RCTV we should close Venevision, Globovision, and Televen and prevent Chavez from showing up on TV. But you see Venevision and Televen are now pro-Chavez (essentially), Globovision does not have the viewer-ship or nation wide reach RCTV had, and Chavez... well no one can control him.
3. If the Venezuelan government had a legal issue with RCTV or its directors they should have taken it to the courts but they didn't nor did they want to. So I would say this is strictly a "freedom of the press" issue based on politics.
4. The press in Venezuela and in many countries is defiantly not the best and often are their own worst enemies. But this was simply press freedom and politics.
I invite you to watch the Venezuelan public television station VTV in particular the program "La Hojilla", the vulgarity, hatred, and sexual innuendoes are shocking. I'm sure you can find some of it on youtube.com.
http://www.vtv.gob.ve/
It is a dangerous precedent to close TV stations, no matter how anti-government they may happen to be. This would be akin to the Clinton White House shutting down Fox News because they didn't like the coverage of the impeachment process, or the Bush White House aiming to shut down CBS News because they didn't like the way that CBS reported about the Iraq War. There's no good way to spin this. It is censorship, plain and simple. We should all be worried about the future of Venezuela when Chavez starts trying to silence his critics in this manner. It is cowardly, anti-democracy, anti-populist, and unethical.
Ka, I think your accusation of skirting involves skirting.
1. Not covering events is not the only issue--see the FAIR report for examples.
2. I don't like using a "he does it, so we can too" type of argument. As my post made clear, censorship is growing, so we agree on that (I think).
3. That's tricky--to my knowledge, Chavez actually had the legal right to do what he did, from a law predating his government. But as my post made clear, I also wish there was accountability in this case, and there isn't.
4. I just don't think it is accurate to boil it down that neatly, because of the coup, which I believe makes it a distinct case. And I don't see how the vulgarity of Venezuelan TV is relevant to the debate.
Lordy, I am ending up sounding like a Chavista. Mike, your example is off the mark, because this particular case is about a coup, not only about criticism. I do think it is relevant to ask how a TV station in the U.S. would be treated if it called for the overthrow of the government.
Greg, the problem is we can't separate the April 11, 2003 issue since it is used a one of the major justification for the closure, as the FAIR article states. BTW, I have some issues with the FAIR article.
1. I am aware of the argument and yes some individuals should be fined or even taken to court. However, this should be done at an individual level and not just shutting down the company. Again we hope that the individuals could get a fair trial, which they could not.
2. Yes we agree on both things! I do not believe in "he does it, so we can too" but I am simply highlighting the hypocrisy of the argument of "well RCTV had a media blackout so we should close them." The government should rule by example, which it does not.
3. To my knowledge he has the right to, but it doesn't change the motive behind it. (I like to think of Bush administration removing US attorneys)
4. I agree, the coup isn't the sole reason but it is used as the big reason. Again the motive (Chavez not being able to control the media) is what is behind this closure. The NY Times article I think does a good job of getting this point across, albeit indirectly. Also why wait 5 years after the fact? why not the other networks? why no legal proceedings?
I brought up VTV because people mention RCTV programing was terrible, biased, and calls for violence. But the public television network is worse.
What we have in Venezuela is a small group of individuals who controlled most of the industry in Venezuela, now they are being replaced by another small group. One that is pro-Chavez and these individuals are worse. So much for the revolution.
Greg, in 1998 Chavez said he was going to rein in PDVSA, media, education, and church. 2 done, working on 1, and 1 to go.
I think the motive behind the closure is very obvious - Chavez wants to control the media! We can discuss legalities, the coup, or blackouts but the motive is the same. Dissent or criticism is not tolerated in the revolution, they say it and act on it how much clearer can it be?
Chavez actually had the legal right to do what he did, from a law predating his government.
Actually, the law you're referring to said the renewal of the broadcast license was to be automatic "as long as the regulations on telecommunications matters have been fulfilled". Miguel has a good explanation of that here.
Chavez gave lip service to some process, but it's clear that the order to close RCTV was not due to process but came from the president directly.
Which I already mentioned in the original post.
Actually, the law you're referring to said the renewal of the broadcast license was to be automatic "as long as the regulations on telecommunications matters have been fulfilled".
And what exactly is your point, Boz?
So automatic renewal of the broadcast license was conditional upon compliance with Venezuelan media regulations. It is quite clear that sedition --i.e. media coordination with coup plotters to extra-constitutionally topple a democratically elected government-- was in violation of Venezuelan media regulations and was legally defined as such long before Chavez ever arrived on the scene.
I think the point Greg Weeks is trying to make (and I agree w/ him) is that while Venezuela is very clearly not a full (or "liberal") democracy, neither is it a totalitarian regime. Instead, it's something else (I think "electoral authoritarianism" might work). And it's also clear (in my mind) that this is a slow slide into authoritarianism that's been going on since 1998, not a jump from a single instance. Clearly, the "Chavista" apologists are refusing to concede that--in the process of pursing goals of "social justice" (however loosely defined)--Chavez is violating many elements of liberal democracy. But if the critics of the regime (and, clearly, Weeks is one of them, as am I) aren't precise--if we rush to compare Chavez w/ Castro, Hitler, Stalin, etc--then we sound equally irresponsible. At least, that's how I understand it.
Forgive me for saying so, mcentellas, but you seem to be operating within a very narrow conceptual framework.
I think a little cross-examination of your conceptual framework is in order.
I think the point Greg Weeks is trying to make (and I agree w/ him) is that while Venezuela is very clearly not a full (or "liberal") democracy, neither is it a totalitarian regime.
I'm not sure what Greg's view is, so I won't comment on that for the moment.
As for your own underlying assumptions, they seem to be that, because Venezuela does not have complete separation of powers and because it has a system of media regulation (as do all democracies), it's not a "full" or "liberal democracy."
A few points are in order here. Venezuela's judicial branch has never been fully independent (as Human Rights Watch has acknowledged), and most of the rest of the region's judicial branches aren't fully independent either. I suppose you could argue, then, that there are few if any "full" democracies in Latin America, but you and I know full well that you single out Venezuela because you're anti-leftist. This is mostly ideology dressed up as political theory.
Moreover, both you and Greg overlook a number of important contextual factors, such as the fact that, before Venezuela's Chavista-controlled congress voted to expand the Supreme Court, the court had blocked attempts to prosecute those who orchestrated the coup. It's one thing to criticize certain institutional configurations IN THE ABSTRACT, but if you're going to simply leave out the relevant political context within which Venezuela's Supreme Court was expanded, one could easily conclude that the criticism is more polemical than theoretical. Moreover, you can't possibly pretend to say anything worthwhile in the way of policy prescription if you're not willing to consider the political context within which institutional changes occur.
Assuming that you and Greg are comparativists, Greg's analysis is not as comparative as it should be and your analysis is simply non-comparative. To his credit, Greg does note that he thinks "it is relevant to ask how a TV station in the U.S. would be treated if it called for the overthrow of the government."
However, Greg's original post is essentially devoid of comparative analysis. He writes, for example, that "TV is getting softer and softer" in Venezuela, citing a report by the New York Times' Simon Romero as evidence. Soft compared to what? That's the relevant question. Soft compared to CNN, ABC, or MSNBC? Give me a break. Globovisión is at least 20 times more nasty to Chavez than any U.S. network is to Bush. Seriously, fellas, you ought to tune in sometime. If you thought that FOX was hard on Clinton, just wait 'til you see Globovisión lay into Chavez. I've seen them bring a so-called psychiatrist onto a show to claim that Chavez was 1000 times more insane than Ecuador's Abdalá Bucarám and should therefore be impeached for insanity (just like Bucarám was). You can quote me on that. Never mind that Chavez had an approval rating of 70% at the time; these goofballs were talking impeachment.
If Globovisión, RCTV, and Venevisión were operating in the United States, they would not only have had their broadcast licenses pulled but would have also faced libel suits up the ying yang. I don't think you two really understand the extent of media hostility (and libel) that the Chavez government has faced.
Even the anti-Chavez correspondent Phil Gunson has corroborated that, in the midst of the coup in April 2002, Marcel Granier (the owner of RCTV), Gustavo Cisneros (the owner of Venevisión), Alberto Ravell (the president of Globovisión) and Miguel Otero (the publisher of El Nacional) met with coup leader Pedro Carmona, who, according to palace guards, told the media magnates: "In your hands lie the safety and stability of the government." The private channels then proceeded to keep Venezuelans "in the dark" about the massive protests against the coup by running "cartoons, reruns and Pretty Woman" instead.
Mind you that the media magnates' compliance with Carmona's requests came immediately after Carmona had annulled the country's democratically-ratified constitution and disbanded Venezuela's congress and supreme court.
Nowadays, Venevisión and Televen are no more "soft" on Chávez than any U.S. network is on Bush. For Simon Romero, "soft" seems to mean airing both sides of the debate (just as media networks do here) and refraining from libel.
If U.S. networks refrain from libel so as to avoid libel suits, nobody cries "censorship" about libel law or demands the "right" to be libelous. But if the Chavez government starts enforcing the law against sedition and libel, a bunch of so-called NGOs --many of which are funded by the NED-- start screaming to high heaven about "censorship."
Let's be serious, fellas. The only reason we're talking about these claims of so-called "censorship" is that the Chavez government is at the vanguard of Latin America's leftward trajectory. The Chavez government is thus seen as a threat by elites throughout the hemisphere. This drum-beat chorus of "censorship" is a very convenient charade for those who have ulterior motives in bashing the Chavez government.
Again, let's be serious. If a non-leftist government were to decide against renewing the broadcast license of a golpista media tycoon, we three wouldn't even be discussing the issue.
Good bye and good riddance, Mr. Granier. Now, instead of spending half your time in Miami, you can spend all your time there (and leave Venezuela in peace).
Miguel sums up my position pretty well. Justin, I agree with some of what you argue, but you make it very difficult to do so!
mcentellas said:
if we rush to compare Chavez w/ Castro, Hitler, Stalin, etc--then we sound equally irresponsible. At least, that's how I understand it.
I think this is what many Venezuelans (including myself) have found so frustrating since 1998. It was so obvious to many of us since 1992 what Chavez stood for and what he wanted to do in Venezuela. Academically and professionally I understand people (such as Dr. Weeks) can not jump to conclusions since it would be "irresponsible".
At the same time we said Chavez was going to take over PDVSA, but foreigners said well he hasn't yet. Then we say it is autocratic he is going to concentrate power, foreigners say he hasn't done that yet so he is a democrat. Then we say he is going to control the media, foreigners say he silenced them yet. Now he is going to control the education system, again we are being ignored. I could go on.
It is rather frustrating to tell people what is going to happen and feel ignored or as a lunatic.
Like mcentellas this is a slow discent into totalitarianism which make the impact much less perceptible than if it happened over night. But the outcome is no different it is totalitarianism.
I am a foreigner, but I've never made any of those arguments or ignored those who argued the opposite. And I don't think my original post ignored concerns about Chavez either.
I don't understand why my skepticism against Chavez should automatically make me "ideologically anti-leftist". That seems odd, and perhaps operating from a "narrow" conceptual framework as well.
You're right, there are few "full" or "liberal" democracies in Latin America. They are few of them in the world, actually. But I didn't decide that Venezuela is sliding towards authoritarianism based on this single incident alone. I'm basing it on the regime's 10-year track record. Which, btw, makes it similar to the track record of Fujimori's Peru (1990-2000).
Your assumption that I wouldn't care if a non-leftist regime attacked a leftist news organization is wrong. I would care. And just as much as I do about this incident. For me it's not about left or right. It's about democratic principles of freedom of the press, separation of powers, horizontal (as well as vertical) accoutability, and other civil rights & political liberties necessary for democracy to function in the long term.
Justin, I think it's rather unfair of you to paint me w/ a broad stroke. I completely agree that pre-Chavez Venezuela (especially during the Punto Fijo system) had siginificant problems. And I pointed out that Venezuela is *NOT* a totalitarian regime.
So my question, Justin, is: on what grounds are you defending Chavez? If it's on the grounds that it's tit-for-tat (a right wing regime would do this, so it's OK for a left wing regime to do it), then this is not a principled argument but rather merely ideological politics--you want your side to win, period. And that's fine. But let's be honest about it. If the position is a principle about freedom of press and other niceties, then it shouldn't matter WHO is doing it, a principled person is (I believe) ethically bound to oppose it. I don't like Chavez shuting down a television station for political purposes any more than I liked it when Fujimori did it, or when Putin does it, or when Singapore does it, or when Iran does it, or any regime that does it for any purpose.
If you want to look at context, the sad reality is that these kinds of regimes are not uncommon in Latin America. They were the dominant form or regime type during most of the 20th century. Peron? Vargas? Velasco? Barrientos? And few of them left any enduring reforms that weren't reversable. And that's the real shame of the Chavez regime. He's only been in power 10 years. Let's give it another 10 (or even 5) and then come back to talk about it.
My appologies Greg, apparently I was miss reading or reading to much into what you were writing.
Really, no apology is necessary. I would just get back to the original idea in the post, which is that I get tired of the "good vs. evil" nature of debate about Venezuela, where Chavez is either Stalin or he's the ultimate hero and savior.
Daniel Hellinger was invited to our campus (Dickinson College) last semester to speak about Venezuela (I also used the volume he co-edited in my "Heroes & Villains" course). It's amazing how the audience reacted to him. He was (I think) very balanced. His argument was basically this: Chavez is neither a demon nor a saint; he's made some authoritarian moves; he's also done much to change significant social inequalities; and the previous system was corrupt. Nothing really controversial there, I think. But he was assailed by those on the right because he didn't criticize Chavez enough ... and by those on the left because he didn't applaud Chavez enough (and because he made some criticisms of the regime's shortcomings). It's amazing how polarizing Chavez has become, to the point where it's almost impossible for many to accept attempts at level-headed objective analysis.
You're right, there are few "full" or 'liberal' democracies in Latin America. They are few of them in the world, actually. But I didn't decide that Venezuela is sliding towards authoritarianism based on this single incident alone. I'm basing it on the regime's 10-year track record. Which, btw, makes it similar to the track record of Fujimori's Peru (1990-2000).
If you're going to accuse the Chavez government of "authoritarianism," then, to be serious, you have to lay out what specific actions of the Chavez government have been "authoritarian" so that I can get an idea of what we're actually debating. To simply claim that his government is akin to that of Fujimori, without laying out specific evidence (and without considering the vast differences in social and political context), doesn't tell me anything.
Your assumption that I wouldn't care if a non-leftist regime attacked a leftist news organization is wrong. I would care.
Notice how you blithely gloss over the fact that RCTV owner Marcel Granier colluded in a failed coup against the Chavez government. A coup that, I might add, really did disband Venezuela's democratic institutions. Now, can you name a "full" democracy where Granier wouldn't be legally subject to denial of his broadcast license in the aftermath of such a sordid episode? If you can't, then you can't point to the RCTV case as grounds for accusing the Chavez government of "authoritarianism." We might agree that the Venezuelan executive branch's legal jurisdiction over broadcast licensing is problematic, but it's been that way since 1987 and I doubt very seriously that you call pre-Chavez governments "authoritarian" on accout of that fact.
You may very well be concerned about press freedom in all countries, but the point is that few would be pointing to this as a "press freedom" issue if the Chavez government weren't a leftist government at the vanguard of Latin America's leftist trajectory. The drum-beat chorus about "censorship" in Venezuela is ideologically-motivated and completely devoid of any meaningful comparative analysis.
For comparative purposes, here's a paragraph from RSF about Peru in 2000:
Media owners risk losing control of their channels as the result of court decisions. Since 1997, two bosses have been stripped of their authority after criticising the government or the SIN's methods. In September 1997, a ruling by the Lima high court permanently deprived Baruch Ivcher of his stake in Frecuencia Latina by stripping him of his Peruvian citizenship. In December 1999 a warrant was issued for the arrest of Genaro Delgado Parker, head of the Red Global channel. He was accused of embezzlement after claiming that the government was controlling the content of television newscasts by using advertising as a means of blackmail. Two months later the transmitters of Radio 1160 were seized on the orders of a court.
More from RSF and HRW.
I have a question that has been plaguing me. I hope the academics will enjoy trying to answer, I look forward to as many answers as possible. I would post this question on my blog but I think the answers might get a bit skewed.
Is it ever justifiable to remove the head of a government, knowing that it will become totalitarian? If not then at what stage does it become acceptable, if ever?
I should clarify:
I am not refereing to outside influence in the removal.
Is it ever justifiable to remove the head of a government, knowing that it will become totalitarian?
Well, gee, KA, anybody can claim that they "know" this or that government will "become totalitarian." If a mere claim to omniciently "know" such things were the accepted standard by which a political opposition could extra-constitionally overthrow a democratically-elected government, all manner of lawlessness would abound.
Simple question for you, Boz. Did any of those networks that were shut down in Peru ever collude with coup plotters to extra-constitutionally overthrow the Peruvian government?
If not, then there is no basis for comparison with the RCTV case.
Justin,
You seem rather angry and making all sorts of assumptions about me (and others?). And I'm not sure why. You're right, I didn't lay out a lengthy essay on Chavez's "authoritarian" tendencies. I didn't think a comment section was necessary. And I noticed that your Blogger profile says you're a doctoral candidate in political science. So I assume you're familiar w/ the same kind of literature I am? Rather than me giving you a laundry list of "authoritarian" moves Chavez has made over the past decade, why not check out some recent issues of the Journal of Democracy? Or Latin American Politics & Society? Or the Hellinger/Ellner edited volume I've mentioned?
I didn't "gloss over" the issue of the coup. I thought Weeks addressed it directly in his original post. So I figured this was common knowledge. Was RCTV supportive of the anti-Chavez coup? Probably. So. Does that justify shutting down the station -- for POLITICAL purposes? I don't think so. The end result is clearly a loss of critical media in Venezuela. Since you want to insist on "comparative" perspectives, why not check out this recent article on Christian Science Monitor comparing this move in Venezuela to similar moves in Iran & Russia:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0524/p01s04-woam.html
I've never heard CS Monitor described as anything other than progressive.
Also, Justin. I'd caution you against the idea (implied in your counter to Boz) that cases must be *identical* to justify comparisons. If you're a comparitivist (or if you've taken a core seminar on the comparative method), you'll remember that even non-similar cases can often be compared.
You seem rather angry and making all sorts of assumptions about me (and others?).
No, actually, I'm not angry. I just expect people to back up their claims when they make them.
You're right, I didn't lay out a lengthy essay on Chavez's "authoritarian" tendencies. I didn't think a comment section was necessary. And I noticed that your Blogger profile says you're a doctoral candidate in political science. So I assume you're familiar w/ the same kind of literature I am?
Yes, I'm aware of the CLAIMS (by Javier Corrales and others), but, unfortunately, Corrales' work is ideologically-motivated, quite loose with the facts, and completely lacking in comparative analysis.
Or the Hellinger/Ellner edited volume I've mentioned?
It's really quite silly for you to invoke Hellinger/Ellner in favor of your own positions. I communicate with them, and their positions are much closer to mine than to yours, I assure you. Check out the 2005 issue of Latin American Perspectives on Venezuela.
Naturally, Hellinger and Ellner maintain a critical perspective, as any scholar should, but they are much more sympathetic to Chavismo than they are to the opposition.
The problem with your conceptual framework is that your notion of "authoritarianism" is selectively applied and devoid of any analysis of social structure. According to your logic, if four fabulously wealthy families control Venezuela's major television networks with an iron fist, fire journalists who don't toe their political line, and help coordinate a transparently anti-democratic coup d'état against a popularly-elected government, that's "freedom of speech." If, on the other hand, a popularly-elected government challenges the notion that these four fabulously wealthy families have a "right" to engage in sedition and monopolize the airwaves, that's "authoritarianism." Never mind that at least part of the popularly-elected government's intent is to broaden popular access to media and to further diversify the "marketplace of ideas." If the government challenges the wealthy's stranglehold over the "marketplace of ideas," well, by golly, it's "authoritarian."
It doesn't take long to figure out that the concepts to which you are ideologically-wedded are designed to turn reality on its head.
"Was RCTV supportive of the anti-Chavez coup? Probably. So.
Uh, Miguel, that's called sedition. If you think sedition by media tycoons in favor of anti-democratic coups is permissible, you obviously don't have much respect for democracy after all.
And, by the way, Miguel, Hellinger clearly disagrees with you. Allow me to quote from his Latin American Perspectives article, entitled "When 'No' Means 'Yes' to Revolution: Electoral Politics in Bolivarian Venezuela" (2005: 17).
"Venezuela’s four private television networks and most prestigious newspapers went beyond mere support of the opposition; with the complete collapse of the old parties, the media themselves became the most institutionalized force of opposition. Not merely biased, they actively organized
efforts to oust Chávez via coup, work stoppages, and recall. Certainly, such a prejudiced information system is incompatible with the basic principle of democracy even in its weak pluralist form." (2005:
Recall that I asked you if you could name a "full" democracy where a media tycoon wouldn't be legally subject to denial of his broadcast license after colluding in a failed coup against the popularly-elected government of his country. Notice that you're incapable of naming one measly example.
Justin, I've also met Hellinger. And I've read more of their work than just their edited volume or one or two articles. I'm glad you respect their analysis. I was starting to fear that you wouldn't (since you were hyper critical of Week's position, which was remarkably nuanced & balanced).
As for the point where you assume that I wouldn't consider the abuse of oligarch's control of the media ... either you're painting a false dilemma ... or you're assuming I must side w/ oligarchs. I don't.
Frankly, it seems we're arguing in a circle (and I also think you've been putting words in my mouth, assuming I support positions I don't in fact support at all). I agree that Chavez isn't totalitarian. Please let me repeat: Chavez is NOT Lenin or Mao or Stalin or Hitler or Castro or Pinochet. He's not. Conceded. You win. Chavez is not a petty run of the mill dictator. But I also believe that his is a "mixed" regime that is neither fully liberal-democratic *NOR* fully authoritarian. That's the scholarly consensus, btw. Though you're always free to oppose it, of course, just because it's consensus doesn't make it "true" (in the philosophical sense of "absolute truth").
But painting that kind of statement (that today's Venezuela is an in-between regime type) as a radical right-wing position is rather unfair. And arguing that Chavez's regime isn't a "liberal" democracy is hardly surprising ... since he explicitly rejects Western liberalism. By his own admission, he's pursuing a path of revolutionary socialism (whether he's actually doing that successfully or not by his own standards is another matter, but let's take him at his word). If so, then why the surprise when he doesn't follow the standards for what makes a "polyarchy" (liberal democracy) outlined by Dahl, Sartori, Diamon, Linz, O'Donnell, and a host of other scholars?
In short, while I'm talking about regime TYPE (in the Linzian sense), you insist on defending the regime's GOALS. But I've really said nothing about goals (and whether I agree w/ them or not). I'm only trying to describe the regime's TYPE. At best, Chavez is a "delegative democrat" (and, btw, so is Bush).
Justin:
The quote you gave from Hellinger relates to the role RCTV played in the coup & its opposition to Chavez. Please note again that I never suggested that RCTV played no role in the coup or that it wasn’t opposed to Chavez. But also note that even the Hellinger quote you used against my non-argument reflect’s Hellinger’s own belief that democratic practices are very weak (and weakening) in Venzuela – and, of course, there’s blame to be had for that on both sides.
You also make it very difficult to carry on a civil discussion because of your tone. For example, you wrote:
“Recall that I asked you if you could name a "full" democracy where a media tycoon wouldn't be legally subject to denial of his broadcast license after colluding in a failed coup against the popularly-elected government of his country. Notice that you're incapable of naming one measly example.”
First, I didn’t realize that you’d see my ignoring your “challenge” (how odd is that to make “challenges”?!) to me as a sign that I’m “incapable” of making a counter claim and therefore can just be dismissed. I’m sorry, but it’s a rather elitist way to go about having conversations (hence, why I think you’ve adopted an “angry” tone). Perhaps there’s no “perfect” example of a case where a fully liberal regime (has there ever been one? and would you accept any case that I presented?) hasn’t acted against seditious individuals. But there are plenty of cases where liberal (whether fully liberal or not) have allowed all sorts of hateful speech, even directed against the government. I’d suggest the example of the US, which has not prevented neo-Nazi and other “hate groups” from printing, making radio broadcasts. In fact, there have been frequent cases of police forces actively protecting such groups during their rallies. William Luther Pierce (the author of the infamous Turner Diaries) was never arrested. He even had a weekly radio show until his death in 2002. His group actively called for the violent overthrow of the US government (inspiring the Oklahoma City bombing), which I think counts as sedition (as you seem to have defined it). So. Does that count?
you were hyper critical of Week's position, which was remarkably nuanced & balanced.
Actually, I'm not hyper-critical of Weeks' position. I think he's right about some things and a bit off about other things (as he seems to think about my statements as well).
I was much more critical of your previously stated positions.
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying in this post. I would note that even Dahl ended up being critical of polyarchy and questioning how truly democratic it was.
However, I don't agree with the notion that Chavez is a "delegative democrat." O'Donnell was essentially describing Menem's government when he used that term. The political process in Venezuela today is much more participatory in character than anything that was going on in Argentina in the '90s. (Juan Forero had an interesting piece about Venezuela's communal councils in the Washington Post recently).
For me, the Chavez government is quite a novel political phenomenon that conventional political concepts ("delegative democrat," "hybrid democracy," etc.) don't properly capture. This isn't really my area of specialization (I'm more into IR and IPE these days), but my sense --from having studied Venezuela and having spent a little time there-- is that the Bolivarian project is one of a kind.
The first thing we have to understand is that, because Venezuela's means of generating state revenue is distinct, we're not talking about a political project that is replicable. It's not a "model" for other Latin American countries because it's economic structure is distinct. It's a political project that is quite naturally conditioned upon the unique structure of its economy.
What I contest is cavalier descriptions of the Chavez government as "authoritarian." Aside from engendering mass popular participation in politics (and record electoral turnouts), the Chavez government meets Przeworski's definition of democracy. Venezuela has free and fair elections, and the opposition quite clearly exercises the means to politically proselytize on its own behalf.
In fact, I would argue that there's more freedom of expression in Venezuela than there is in the United States.
The difference between media in Venezuela and that of the United States is that there is a huge variety of media perspectives available to the Venezuelan public. Walk up to any kiosk in downtown Caracas, and you have your choice of picking up El Universal (rabidly anti-chavista), El Nacional (rabidly anti-chavista), Tal Cual (anti-chavista), Ultimas Noticias (mixed perspective) or Diario Vea (pro-chavista). In fact, it is well understood that the opposition continues to dominate the printed media. Unlike Americans, Venezuelans have ready access to a true "marketplace of ideas," which ranges from rightist (El Universal) to leftist (Diario Vea). On television, Venezuelans can tune in to Chavez's "Alo Presidente," or they can tune in to Globovision's "Alo Ciudadano" (rabidly anti-chavista).
In the United States, on the other hand, every major newspaper in the country bashes Chavez. The op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times routinely bash Chavez. Despite the fact that Chavez enjoys overwhelming popular support in his country, major U.S. media --controlled by the American ruling class-- virtually never offer perspectives sympathetic to Chavez's government.
Now, notice the difference. Venezuelans do have ready access to perspectives sympathetic to the Washington establishment (El Universal, Globovision, etc.). Americans, on the other hand, do not have ready access to perspectives sympathetic to the Chavez government (or the left in general).
When you really put Venezuela's political system into comparative perspective, it becomes rather clear that the drum-beat chorus about Chavez the "strongman" is ideologically-motivated and not empirically sound.
Miguel, you can't compare the Turner Diaries to a major television network. I think you know that.
The relevant comparison would be the U.S. state's regulation of public broadcasting to the Venezuelan state's regulation of public broadcasting.
Do FCC rules permit public broadcasters to call for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the U.S. government? Plainly, the answer is no. Under FCC rules, could a broadcaster that calls for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the U.S. government be denied renewal of its broadcast license? Yes.
I suspect the same holds true in every Western European democracy.
The RCTV case simply does not constitute grounds for claiming that the Venezuelan government is authoritarian.
Justin:
I agree that the FCC regulations could be interepreted exactly as you state them. But I also think the FCC regulations are too restrictive in this country, too.
I would disagree on the idea that there is "more" freedom of expression in Venezuela than in the US. I agree that they have access to plenty of critical media in Venezuela. But I can walk into any Barnes & Noble and pick up lots of left-leaning, progressive, and even Marxist magazines & newsweeklies. I even subscribe to some of them.
You referenced Przeworski. So I'd add that Przeworski once defined democracy as a system in which parties lose elections. That part is rather unclear in the Venezuelan case. Yes, the opposition madea huge blunder by boycotting the legislative elections some time ago. But Chavez has now extended has mandate far beyond his original term. That does resemble the kind of delegative practices of someone like Menem. And while the Bolivarian circles are rather unique (though they look like the kind of Peronist societies common in the 1940s-50s), it's still clear that Chavez is *individually* in charge; authority flows from him (thus instead of two-party cronyism of the Punto Fijo system we now have one-party cronyism, which is not an improvement).
So, frankly, I don't think pointing out Chavez's authoritarian tendencies is a drum beat to the right. I think it's important to be critical. Chavez has very frequently overstepped what most would consider "normal" in a polyarchy (and, yes, I've read Dahl's latter works, too). Dahl is heavily concerend w/ the decentralization or devolution of state power, the issue of autonomy vs. control.
But what I keep coming back to is this: If the Bolivarian revolution is truly a "mass" movement, then why does it rely exclusively on the leadership of one individual? If MVR is an institutionalized party, it should be able to promote future leaders from w/in its ranks. After all, the PRI in Mexico was able to do that for nearly 70 years (and, yes, that wasn't a democracy either).
There is clearly a cult of personality around Chavez, a cult of personality he himself encourages. That's perhaps the most troubling aspect. What happens to the regime if anything were to happen to Chavez?
I find it interesting that Chavez went on the air late yesterday to threaten Globovision and other media that he would go after them, next. That does suggest a pattern. Aren't you at all troubled by that?
I guess my Marxist heroes (Che Guevara, Trotsky, Gramsci) have always been the ones who were able to call others w/in their own movements authoritarian when necessary. Trotsky didn't think that Lenin (or Stalin) had the right to pursue centralizing strategies simply because tehy claimed to be Marxist socialists.
But you're right about Venezuela being a unique case because of its oil. That's actually another problem. Venezuela was a rentier state since the 1930s -- and it remains a rentier state today. Chavez's regime relies too much on a high oil price. It's important to note that in the 1990s, the country's oil revenues hit rock bottom. Actually, the international price of oil hit its lowest point in decades the year Chavez took over. Since then, the price has been going up. That means that Chavez is actually merely repeating the economic policies of the 1960s-1970s (when petrodollars fueled AD/COPEI public spending frenzies). What happens when that prices falls? Or, worse, collapses?
My impression is that this debate is coming to a standstill. Just a few thoughts:
1. The RCTV case is not a great example of authoritarian rule, though neither is it a great example of democratic rule.
2. My own opinion is that looking at horizontal accountability and tyranny of the majority (or lack thereof) would provide a clearer picture of whether a country (Venezuela or otherwise) is more or less "authoritarian."
3. Analyzing Venezuelan politics and perhaps even labeling it need not be based on ideology. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
4. That said, Justin is absolutely right that many arguments about "authoritarianism" in Venezuela are indeed cavalier and prompted by visceral dislike of Chavez and/or the idea of socialism itself.
5. Let's get a thesaurus because I am getting tired of "drumbeat."
And Ka, "knowing" is so subjective that I think only individuals can determine at what point they believe their government is illegitimate. Free elections and totalitarianism, however, cannot co-exist.
I would disagree on the idea that there is 'more' freedom of expression in Venezuela than in the US. I agree that they have access to plenty of critical media in Venezuela. But I can walk into any Barnes & Noble and pick up lots of left-leaning, progressive, and even Marxist magazines & newsweeklies. I even subscribe to some of them.
The differences are as follows:
1) In Venezuela, you actually have access to both left-wing and right-wing perspectives ON PUBLIC TELEVISION. That is not true in the United States. The left's presence in public debate in the United States is so ridiculously emasculated that it verges on non-existence.
2) In Venezuela, you don't have to walk into a bookstore to have access to both left and right-wing perspectives. All you have to do is turn on the television or walk up to any kiosk to have such access. There is really no question that Venezuelans have greater accessibility to different ideological perspectives.
You referenced Przeworski. So I'd add that Przeworski once defined democracy as a system in which parties lose elections. That part is rather unclear in the Venezuelan case. Yes, the opposition madea huge blunder by boycotting the legislative elections some time ago. But Chavez has now extended has mandate far beyond his original term.
These just aren't tenable arguments, Miguel. In both the referendum and the last presidential election, the opposition picked up around 40% of the vote (a little less in the last election and a wee bit more in the referendum). So the opposition has the support of approximately two-fifths of the electorate. The oppsosition is plainly within electoral striking distance and has the means to compete electorally.
As for term limits, let's put the question into comparative perpective once again. Does Spain have term limits? No. Does Germany have term limits? No. Does England have term limits? No.
Nobody argues that Merkel, Blair and Zapatero are "authoritarian" on account of the fact that they could legally vie for their countries' prime ministries for the rest of their lives. Plainly, the political oppositions of Spain, England and
Germany have the electoral opportunity to unseat the prime minister, just as Venezuela's opposition has the electoral opportunity to unseat the country's president.
If Chavez goes on winning free and fair elections, that's democracy, plain and simple.
That does resemble the kind of delegative practices of someone like Menem. And while the Bolivarian circles are rather unique (though they look like the kind of Peronist societies common in the 1940s-50s)...
Here's my suggestion to you, Miguel. Rather than taking Javier Corrales' word for it, I would suggest that you take a trip into the barrios of, say, La Vega and Santa Cruz del Este (in Caracas) and start interviewing grass-roots political leaders. What you'll find is that "Bolivarian Circles" constitute only a small part of Chavez's mass base and that there is, in fact, a huge array of popular organizations that are allied with the president. As Sujatha Fernandes points out, many if not most of these popular organizations pre-date the rise of Chavez. What you'll also find is that the barrios see the Chavez government as the most democratic government that Venezuela has ever had.
it's still clear that Chavez is *individually* in charge; authority flows from him (thus instead of two-party cronyism of the Punto Fijo system we now have one-party cronyism, which is not an improvement).
Again, rather than taking Javier Corrales' word for it, I would suggest that you go to Venezuela and really study the issue yourself. The relation of political power is much more complicated than you understand it to be. Sujatha Fernandes describes the question of power quite well: "The relationship between society and the state is reciprocal: just as the strong figure of Chávez has given impetus and unity to popular organizing, so the creative movements fashioned in the barrios help determine the form and content of official politics. To see Chávez as an independent figure pontificating from above, or popular movements as originating in autonomous spaces from below would be to deny the interdependencies that have made possible Chávez’s emergence and sustained access to power."
So, frankly, I don't think pointing out Chavez's authoritarian tendencies is a drum beat to the right. I think it's important to be critical. Chavez has very frequently overstepped what most would consider "normal" in a polyarchy (and, yes, I've read Dahl's latter works, too). Dahl is heavily concerend w/ the decentralization or devolution of state power, the issue of autonomy vs. control.
Notice that you haven't actually pointed to one actual example of Chavez overstepping democratic bounds, but I guess I'll just have to assume that you have some examples in mind.
But what I keep coming back to is this: If the Bolivarian revolution is truly a "mass" movement, then why does it rely exclusively on the leadership of one individual?
That interpretation is just completely wrong. The Bolivarian project relies on much much more than Chavez's leadership, as Fernandes and others have long clarified. The problem is that conventional political science hasn't equipped you with the conceptual tools to understand these things.
If MVR is an institutionalized party, it should be able to promote future leaders from w/in its ranks. After all, the PRI in Mexico was able to do that for nearly 70 years (and, yes, that wasn't a democracy either).
And what makes you think there aren't future leaders in the MVR's ranks or that such gradual leadership formation isn't taking place? The truth is that you really don't have the means to back up your claims.
There is clearly a cult of personality around Chavez, a cult of personality he himself encourages. That's perhaps the most troubling aspect. What happens to the regime if anything were to happen to Chavez?
Whether or not a country has a charismatic leader with a devoted following has no bearing on whether or not that country's political system is actually democratic. Moreover, I assure you that there are vast numbers of potential leaders within the ranks of Chavismo. The caricatures you draw simply have no bearing on reality; they're purely ideological constructions. The notion that Venezuela is just a country with one charismatic leader and a bunch of sheep that follow him is a reflection of your own elitist ideological predisposition, not the reality on the gound.
I find it interesting that Chavez went on the air late yesterday to threaten Globovision and other media that he would go after them, next. That does suggest a pattern. Aren't you at all troubled by that?
Well, I'm not in Venezuela and can't see the facts on the ground, so I don't care to comment. What I would suggest is that, just as you should maintain a critical perspective about Chavez, so too should you maintain a critical perspective about the international media's interpretations of the facts on the ground in Venezuela. Often the media's interpretations are inaccurate and/or grossly decontextualized; their biases often reflect the interests of their owners.
Moreover, you might want to consider putting these matters into historical perspective. Alberto Ravell, the owner of Globovision, is a man who not only worked to foment an anti-democratic coup d'etat. As the head of an affiliate of CNN, Ravell actually telephoned CNN offices in Atlanta during the coup to request that the U.S. network join the news blackout of mass protests against the coup. As far as I'm concerned, Ravell is lucky to have a broadcast license at all. Moreover, given Ravell's history of attempting to incite violence and unrest, it's certainly understandable that the Chavez government would be concerned about some of his activities.
...Chavez is actually merely repeating the economic policies of the 1960s-1970s (when petrodollars fueled AD/COPEI public spending frenzies).
It's obvious to me that you don't actually command the knowledge to make such perfunctory claims. What's similar about today and the 1970s is that the price of oil is high, permitting the Venezuelan government to do things that it wouldn't otherwise be able to do. To ignore, however, the vast differences in the social character of the Bolivarian Revolution (as compared to Carlos Andres Perez's first government) or to ignore the participatory character of the Bolivarian Revolution (in contrast to Carlos Andres Perez's first government) are major oversights.
What happens when that prices falls? Or, worse, collapses?
I haven't seen the latest economic figures, but I noted in an article in early 2006 that the Venezuelan government was running a budget surplus and an enormous trade surplus, and that it had a whopping $29 billion in reserves and had budgeted for oil prices (in 2005) at about half their realized price. "So the idea that it could all come crashing down with a drop in oil prices is a more of an opposition fantasy," I wrote. The same holds true today.
Simple question for you, Boz. Did any of those networks that were shut down in Peru ever collude with coup plotters to extra-constitutionally overthrow the Peruvian government?
Simple answer for you, Justin.
Fujimori and his supporters claimed the censorship was necessary in the name of "national security". In the case of Ivcher, they accused him of providing arms to Ecuador. In other cases, they claimed the opposition media outlets were sympathetic to the Shining Path. So yes, like Chavez, Fujimori did link the opposition media to threats to the state including "coup-plotters".
Also like Chavez, Fujimori and his supporters claimed all the actions they were taking in shutting down the media outlets was a legal institutional process. In reality, what they were doing was censoring their political opposition.
Uh, Boz, the difference here is that Chavez isn't merely claiming that RCTV's owner Marcel Granier had links to coup plotters. RCTV's links to coup plotters have been firmly established by none other than ANTI-CHAVEZ correspondents like Phil Gunson. There's even video footage of Granier at the Miraflores presidential palace during the coup.
There's even video footage...
In case you haven't studied the Montesinos era in Peru, you should know there was plenty of video footage of opposition media people in compromising positions. President Fujimori used those videos to create justifications for censoring his opposition media.
I disagreed when Fujimori did it. I disagree now when Chavez does it.
In case you haven't studied the Montesinos era in Peru, you should know there was plenty of video footage of opposition media people in compromising positions.
"Compromising positions"? We're not talking about mere "compromising positions," Boz. We're talking about sedition.
If RCTV's Granier had done what he did in the United States, he wouldn't just have lost his broadcast license; he would have been incarcerated. In fact, under U.S. law, Granier probably would have been legally subject to capital punishment.
Nonetheless, we won't be seeing you scream to high heaven about FCC rules or U.S. laws on sedition. No, you'll selectively reserve your screaming for big bad Hugo because that's what pays the bills.
No stupid comments like "that's what pays the bills." Address the arguments without attacks on the person.
If RCTV's Granier had done what he did in the United States, he wouldn't just have lost his broadcast license; he would have been incarcerated. In fact, under U.S. law, Granier probably would have been legally subject to capital punishment.
But Chavez, like Fujimori, didn't just go after the media owner on a specific crime. Like Fujimori, Chavez used the "evidence" as justification to shut down the entire opposition media outlet and replace it with a pro-government media outlet. And that, in my opinion, is censorship.
I don't think anyone's going to get Justin to concede on any point. He's made it clear, I think, that he's already made up his mind and that there's no evidence or argument that will convince him otherwise. So perhaps we should stop trying? Frankly, it seems like we're just going in circles.
But Chavez, like Fujimori, didn't just go after the media owner on a specific crime. Like Fujimori, Chavez used the "evidence" as justification to shut down the entire opposition media outlet...
You don't seem to get it, Boz. Granier owns RCTV. If the government denies renewal of Granier's broadcast license (on account of his participation in the coup), that, by definition, implies the end of RCTV as a public network.
Granier is not a proponent of "free speech." It's well understood that he ran RCTV with an iron fist and imposed his own editorial line on all its content. For a time, he insisted, for example, that all news workers refer to Chavez as "lieutenant colonel Chavez" rather than "president Chavez."
So, first off, let's make one thing completely clear. To claim that your defense of Granier is a defense of "free speech" is completely absurd. In Venezuela, there isn't even a pretense of "separation of church and state" between media ownership and journalistic practice (as has historically existed in the United States). Granier ran RCTV as his own private fiefdom in which journalists had no right to assert their independence from his editorial line.
So, basically, what you're arguing is that a golpista media owner has a "right" to automatic renewal of his broadcast license so that he can control one of the small number of public signals and project his own political and economic power over the airwaves. I hate to break this to you, Boz, but Granier has no such "right." In every society, the rights of private broadcasters are conditional upon their adherence to particular social and political norms. Advocacy of coups against popularly-elected governments are in violation of such basic norms, as is clearly understood in any society the world over.
Miguel, I gave you a very long response to your last post. You're more than welcome to decide that you don't want to discuss the issue any more, but don't try to make it out as if it's because I'm too stubborn to listen. I listened. I simply wasn't convinced by the last arguments that you put forth, and I gave you very detailed reasons as to why. You may very well have some sound criticisms of Chavismo, but, in my opinion, you've yet to adequately articulate such criticisms here.
Granier is not a proponent of "free speech."
Justin, whether true or not, what you wrote above doesn't give a government the right to censor its opposition. What you wrote sounds similar to how those who defended Fujimori criticized the media opposition in that country.
Being that you were so strongly promoting "comparative analysis" earlier in the thread, let's remain on the Chavez-Fujimori comparison.
Fujimori claimed the media owners backed Ecuador or the Shining Path, which he considered two threats to his government. Chavez claims the media owners backed the coup in 2002.
Fujimori used his claims to shut down media outlets and replace them with pro-government outlets. Chavez used his claims to shut down media outlets and replace them with pro-government outlets.
Fujimori pointed to the court processes to claim the shutdown was backed by the government institutions. Chavez points at the media license process to claim the shutdown is simply part of an institutional process.
I know you haven't studied Peru as much as Venezuela, but perhaps you should look at the Fujimori regime a bit closer. Chavez was friends with Montesinos and learned some tactics from Fujimori's regime.
Chavez claims the media owners backed the coup in 2002.
They aren't mere claims, Boz. They are established facts. Moreover, they are facts that constitute legal grounds for denial of renewal of a station's broadcast license in virtually every country of the world.
Try again, fella.
They are established facts.
As much as you're in love with that St. Petersburg Times article, I'm sure that I could go back and find some media article from Peru in the 1990's that provides "established facts" to prove the guilt of those Ivchar and the other media owners. However, an article's appearance in the media is not due process by a government.
Whether true or not in either country, the presidents did not use those "established facts" to simply try the media owners. Both Chavez and Fujimori used them to justify the shut down an opposition media station and replace with pro-government propaganda.
The only difference here is that you make a leap of faith in believing Chavez is doing the right thing whereas history shows us that Fujimori was wrong.
The only difference here is that you make a leap of faith in believing Chavez is doing the right thing whereas history shows us that Fujimori was wrong.
Uh, actually, Boz, the key differences are that:
1) there really was a coup against Venezuela's popularly-elected government;
2) the coup leaders really did disband the country's democratic institutions; and
3) RCTV's owner really did seditiously collude in the prosecution of said coup.
You can try to trivialize the fact that a coup against Venezuela's popularly-elected government took place and that RCTV colluded in its prosecution, but you won't get very far with serious people because these aren't trivial matters.
I think the situations of Fujimori and Chavez are valid comparisons for all the reasons I listed above.
Chavez shut down the major opposition media outlet in the country and he's threatening others. As I said on my own blog, you can continue listing excuses for censorship of political opinions, but it's still censorship.
Let me ask you a question, Boz. Does the U.S. Smith Act --which prohibits speech that explicitly incites the forcible overthrow of the government--constitute "censorship"?
I suggest people take a look at Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)
The Smith Act has been unused since 1961.
Does the U.S. Smith Act --which prohibits speech that explicitly incites the forcible overthrow of the government--constitute "censorship"?
If it were enforced, most certainly yes. Justice Black wrote in 1951 that the government's indictments under the act were a "virulent form of prior censorship of speech and press". I agree with him.
Once again, I defend free speech; you make excuses for censorship. I think we've defined our opposing political views on this fairly well.
Boz, the issue isn't merely about censorship. It's about whether any legal statute by any government is--by definition--also moral or ethical. I don't think that's the case (e.g. everything the Nazis did was "legal" according to the statutes of their regime). If the argument is that any legal doctrine is, by definition, morally or ethically "right"--then we're necessarily siding either w/ the status quo (how the law currently stands) or w/ whatever group can enforce its will on thers (how obedience is maintained). Not a pretty picture, eh?
I'll also go on record as saying that Smith Act constitutes censorship. I'm glad it hasn't been used in decades (even during the Vietnam war, surprisingly). Let's hope it's not used again.
The Smith Act need not be used against broadcasters because none dare to cross it. In other words, what you guys call "censorship" of seditious speech is so deeply institutionalized within our system of media regulation that you don't even recognize it.
For me, the primary forms of censorship in American society are not the product of state regulation but rather corporate control over the means of communication.
So we agree that censorship is bad? Good. Do we agree that it's equally bad when any person/group does it? Or is censorship not bad (or only defined as "censorship") when it's used by people we agree with?
The test of our commitment to the principle of freedom of speech is when we defend it even for people we think are evil. At least that was the goal of the kind of progressive movement I grew up with.
You consider U.S. and Venezuelan prohibitions of seditious speech to be "censorship." For me, that's not censorship. Those are just basic regulatory norms that virtually all democracies share.
The standard is quite straight-forward, actually. You can criticize and oppose the government. You can call for the impeachment of the government. You can campaign on behalf of opposition politicians. You can support opposition protests. You can denounce corruption.
However, a broadcaster simply cannot call for the extra-constitutional overthrow of the government. And it cannot libel people either. Libel and seditious speech are not legally protected speech, neither in the United States nor in Venezuela. And there are very good reasons as to why prohibitions on seditious speech and libel exist. I need not explain libel law, but prohibitions on seditious speech exist because impunity for anti-democratic coup-plotting imperils democracy and emboldens coup-plotters. We've already seen this on display in Venezuela. Seditious speech by major broadcasters is simply not a a permissible activity.
Post a Comment