Chavez: The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done.

Gotta love this guy!

Venezuela's Chavez calls for internet controls

(Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, who is criticized by media freedom groups, called on Saturday for regulation of the Internet and singled out a website that he said falsely reported the murder of one of his ministers.

"The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms," Chavez said. He cited German Chancellor Angel Merkel as having expressed a similar sentiment recently.

Chavez is angry with Venezuelan political opinion and gossip website Noticierodigital, which he said had falsely written that Diosdado Cabello, a senior minister and close aide, had been assassinated. The president said the story remained on the site for two days.

"We have to act. We are going to ask the attorney general for help, because this is a crime. I have information that this page periodically publishes stories calling for a coup d'etat. That cannot be permitted."

Why would Chavez call to regulation of the entire internet within Venezuela over one internet site located within his country? Why doesn't he just shut it down like he has already done to other media outlets critical of his dictatorship administration? Does he have other reasons to seek for personal control over his country's internet access?

[edit on 3/14/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

The biggest thorn in the side of dictators is the free flow of information...of course he wants not only his country to clamp down, but the rest of the world. His worldview is one of complete rule over the people...he may not be able to comprehend open governments and people.

As far as the website he is complaining about, well, I imagine there are libel laws. He can take care of that if there is a case against them...but also a good place to use it as a springboard to clamp down on any governmental dissidence websites.

The internet is a good gauge to read for how a country's freedoms are seen.

Sorry Australia

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


C'mon, he is not a dictator.

They have a socialist utopia over there, I thought. At least that is what I hear about socialism. It is all about gumballs and rainbows.

Oh, almost forgot, everyone dancing and singing koombyah.

I think many leaders share Chavez's idea. A truly free internet can be a very ugly place. Many people of the world think the internet as a whole needs terms and conditions. If all internet users follow the rules, the world community can internet in peace.

Now it is just a race on who is going to write the world wide T&C. I heard Iran, China ,Aulstralia and North Korea all are implementing ideas right now.

It will be interesting how far Chavez's version will go.

Chavez seems to be very keen to jump on the censorship bandwagon.

Why would he want to keep the internet quiet?

Obviously there may have been false reporting, but it goes on all the time, and this is the first time he has openly spoken of this?

It seems to me that with all the openly false reporting that goes on in the media that all forms of media should be heavily censored, or even shut down. That would make total sense, in a senseless world.

There's something fishy about this story, and my instincts tell me that Chavez is in the "club" with the likes of Brown, Mengel, Obama, etc.

Hugo Chavez is no longer a hero, but a rather a new world order bandwagon, don't be fooled by his speeches i thought he was different but i was wrong, hopefully this article is nothing more then lies.

Oh the tyranny. Chavez is calling for regulation preventing people from bringing a coup (never peaceful) and falsely stating that party members have been assassinated in order to further the idea of a coup.

You all are planning on moving out of the US, right? Because last I checked, you cannot plan to stage a coup on the White House (protest, yes, coup, no.) You cannot bolster your plans for a coup by spreading around that your group (which wouldn't be said, but apparent) has already assassinated one person.

Such a strange "hit piece" to bring against a man, I guess agendas really will carry people out the window while completely passing logic on the way out.

Maybe not, but the space between Chavez's ears appears to be a wide open space where just about anything can be said or done.

He's an idiot.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

Why doesn't he just shut it down like he has already done to other media outlets critical of his dictatorship administration? Does he have other reasons to seek for personal control over his country's internet access?

For the simple reason that he uses it himself, and needs the Internet to communicate with his military commanders, police, and whoever else would protect him. It's the same reason why the Iranian regime doesn't shut it down entirely, as they've become dependent on it to run the country.

Originally posted by niteboy82
Oh the tyranny. Chavez is calling for regulation preventing people from bringing a coup (never peaceful) and falsely stating that party members have been assassinated in order to further the idea of a coup.

You do know that this is the same guy that shut down opposition radio stations, right?

Guess what? He can go ahead and shut down the intardweb. Coups have been planned for centuries without it.

Originally posted by jerico65Guess what? He can go ahead and shut down the intardweb. Coups have been planned for centuries without it.

The difference is, he is not shutting down the entire internet, he is shutting down sites that are calling for "revolutions" that will be bloody. Its no different than much of what the US does, it's just that our countries are already indoctrinated into acceptance without thinking much about it.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Last I heard calling for assassination of an elected leader is illegal in democracies. Not that Chavez is the answer but he's already faced down one CIA assassination attempt and the CIA is throwing lots of money into Venezuela to overthrow a democratically elected leader.

Democracy or is the U.S. closer to Friendly Fascism?

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

I spent a few weeks in Venezuela right before Chavez was elected and the barefoot peasants had never voted before but did for the first time in order to get Chavez elected.

Pretty amazing.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by niteboy82



Well one can still openly accuse the president of mass murder we see it all the time. As far as a coup you can talk about that as well but they will be watching you.

Give Chavez time. More to come.

Originally posted by Logarock
Well one can still openly accuse the president of mass murder we see it all the time.

There is a very large difference between making an accusation of murder against an elected official and using websites to plan taking out the government, and I mean literally "taking out."

As far as a coup you can talk about that as well but they will be watching you.

Be my guest, only I wouldn't do it here because it is against the T&C's, but go elsewhere and start planning out how you're going to take over Washington DC and kill people. Black suits will be on you faster than it takes for them to knock on your door.

Give Chavez time. More to come.

Yep, about 12 other people here saying the same thing, while silently remaining subordinate to the exact same policy in their own country. Ironic.

reply to post by niteboy82



Never said thats what I had in mind. Just saying you complain about someone using the net against Chavez, accusing him of murder and advocating an overthrow and yet the net was and has been the primary source used to promote that Bush was involved in mass murder, a war criminal and should be delt with.

My point is in part that there has not been any ajustment on the net in the USA to stop this. Are you really not getting this simple point? And please dont put words in someones mouth on a public forum like this.


[edit on 14-3-2010 by Logarock]

Originally posted by Logarock
Never said thats what I had in mind. Just saying you complain about someone using the net against Chavez, accusing him of murder and advocating an overthrow and yet the net was and has been the primary source used to promote that Bush was involved in mass murder, a war criminal and should be delt with.

No. Accusing Bush of murder, calling him a war criminal, and wishing that either an America or International Court find him guilty of such charges is quite different from planning a bloody revolution against a government. Refusing to acknowledge this very primary difference is a blatant admission of either bias or ignorance on the subject.

My point is in part that there has not been any ajustment on the net in the USA to stop this. Are you really not getting this simple point?

I'm afraid that you are confused, as I outlined the differentiation quite succinctly above. If I need to break it down further, I would be more than happy to. There is no adjustment of the internet in the USA because there are already laws in place to follow up on such actions being done that are direct threats of harm upon our government.

Why should any other government not do the same? Or is this yet another case of "do what America says, not as America does?"

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by Logarock
Never said thats what I had in mind. Just saying you complain about someone using the net against Chavez, accusing him of murder and advocating an overthrow and yet the net was and has been the primary source used to promote that Bush was involved in mass murder, a war criminal and should be delt with.

No. Accusing Bush of murder, calling him a war criminal, and wishing that either an America or International Court find him guilty of such charges is quite different from planning a bloody revolution against a government. Refusing to acknowledge this very primary difference is a blatant admission of either bias or ignorance on the subject.

In the spirit that these charges are baseless and action on same is removed from your "bloody revolution" by legal structure only, but in a spirit of revolution none the less, yes I am biased. And while history will grant you the later, history will grant no one the exclusion of the "bloody revolution" from the list of actions taken against tyrants and dictators. Be those actions the rising up of the citizenry against a tyrant or powers from other quarters bringing themselves to bear on behalf of the oppressed as Bush did.

As far as bias, I am very biased and exstremely liberal in holding that speaking of revolution is a classical part of a free peoples arsenal of rights and carrying this into action is their duty to tyrants.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Logarock]

reply to post by Logarock


Yeah this documentary on the CIA assassination attempt on Chavez is must viewing to understand the situation he is in:

video.google.com...#

Amnesty International refused to show this in their Human Rights tour! Why? because it was "too political." Sort of like the sanctions on Iraq killing half a million kids.

Just got done with that. So glad the constitution won out. But have to say that the coverage and story line looked sort of scripted. Something hollywood about the thing.

reply to post by Logarock


Naw -- nothing special about Chavez -- watch John Perkin's doc:

Apologies of an Economic Hitman -- that covers the CIA assassinations of the Presidents of Panama and Ecuador among others:

www.linktv.org...

If you need some references read Professor Chomsky's Political Economy of Human Rights Vol 1: Washington Connection and Third World Fascism:

www.amazon.com...

[edit on 15-3-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by drew hempel]