Jeff

McElwee acknowledged the critics’ point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez’s presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: “Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made.”

Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:

The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

2. It seems like everyone here is defending Chavez because they’re Chavez supporters, and nothing else (See CH’s comment: “Chavez the enemy? Hardly”)

I don’t think anyone here even knows what RCTV did during the coup. If they really incited people, that would be treason and someone would find some criminal charge, but no one has. Chavez being anti-US/pro-Communism doesn’t make him automatically right.”

Your making assumptions based on your own apparent biases. The argument is larger than a given leader (in this case Chavez). The sources for what happened in Venezuela are many and corroborative regarding the role RCTV played in the attempted coup. I am not aware of the legal particulars in claiming treason in Venezuela. I think it is more than fair to say that had this occurred in the US, treason charges would have been launched post haste.

What we do know is that the Venezuelan government renews network licenses and did not renew RCTV when it came up for renewal. A tiny price to pay for what we would call treasonous activity.

2. It seems like everyone here is defending Chavez because they’re Chavez supporters, and nothing else (See CH’s comment: “Chavez the enemy? Hardly”)

I don’t think anyone here even knows what RCTV did during the coup. If they really incited people, that would be treason and someone would find some criminal charge, but no one has. Chavez being anti-US/pro-Communism doesn’t make him automatically right.

free speech doesnt give you the right to do whatever and say whatever you want. Free speech is not like the “free out of jail-card” from that game or like having a “license to kill” like that superagent spy. Free speech doesnt work like that; it must follow the rules and laws of a society like the rest of us.

maybe you are confusing the term; “free speech”. i know it uses the word “free” but there are some conditions like we are hold, as citzens, to some conditions.

for example, you are “free” to say the word “bomb” in an airport; you can say it…just a wait a few minutes to see what happens to you.

They do not comprehend that free-speech is a universal value. OTOH, they are intensely loyal to Communists. In that sense, they are low IQ inferior morons and useful idiots. Of course, the American right-wing is incapable of ideological positions either. Notice how they supported Osama bin Laden , Saddam Hussein and other dictators and justified it.

I will admit one point though — the right-wing hates me for my ideas, the left-wing hates me for who I am. In that sense, the American leftists are more racist than their right-wing counterparts.

To answer the question raised here — what if NBC cheered a coup against Bush? In India, we usually quote Voltaire when we say that we may disagree with you, but will defend you on your right to say something.

I have found that American “liberals” are too dumb to understand this concept. I even tried this test on the so-called “liberals” — I claimed that Hugo Chavez was accused of pedophilia. The immediate reaction of the “liberal” (so-called) was that the child is at fault. The second reaction was that pedophilia is not really bad. American left is a bunch of low IQ morons who base their position on who says something rather than the merits of the issue.

As for the “coup,” if you really believe that the general strike was part of the coup, you are a moron. There was a general strike and the army leaders tried to exploit the situation. They were arrested for it. Also, if you call a general strike as a coup, then the protests in Seattle a few years back would be called a coup. And the anti-war protesters were carrying pro-Saddam and pro-Osama placards. Their right to express their views was not blocked.

You, at this site, are creating a reality that suits you, because Chavez is the enemy or your enemy. Give people the truth. Don’t allude to things that RCTV may have done, spell it out. The problem is you can’t because it wouldn’t be worth writing about.

How about the following asked of him: What if a bomb has been set to go off, which will kill many people, and you strongly suspect your prisoner knows where it’s located. Is it okay to torture him to elicit the information?

Or better yet: What if a professor supports theft of land and apartheid that will kill many Palestinians, and that his support helps to perpetuate the killing. Is it okay to torture him to try and stop the killing?