Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Venezuelan Gov't Seeks Internet Content Bill

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the suddenly-the-fcc-doesn't-look-so-bad dept.

Censorship 248

Ah, none is more coward! writes "Several local and international news outlets report that the overwhelmingly pro-Chávez Venezuelan National Assembly is considering a reform of their Social Responsibility law to include Internet content. Besides regulations on mature content and mandatory airing of government messages, the existing bill includes broad prohibitions against 'destabilizing' and 'disquieting' content. The Assembly also has a proposal for a single national Internet access point, 'with a view to handling outgoing and incoming traffic in Venezuela.'"

cancel ×

248 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The final step. (3, Insightful)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524130)

And thus the last avenue of free speech in Venezuela dissapears.

Re:The final step. (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524146)

I doubt anyone's actually surprised; this has been coming for quite some time.

Re:The final step. (5, Insightful)

Timenerd (1726590) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524170)

It's coming in this country too.

Re:The final step. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524352)

Even though I know that this is a common opinion on the internet, and though our freedom has been plummeting exponentially over the past 10 years, it is a LOT harder to deal the "final blow" to freedom of speech in a country with numerous large regions, 300 million people, and a relatively rich, freedom-loving populace with guns than it is in a small country of impoverished worker class people from Venezuela.

Re:The final step. (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524900)

Why oppress the people when they oppress themselves? Practically everything we do today is controlled by corporations, either on their own accord (profit) or "self regulating" in order to avoid the government. Just look at the Wikileaks donation fiasco to know how much freedom you really have.

The best kind of oppression (for a government) is the kind that the citizens don't notice.

Re:The final step. (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524926)

Good thing you didn't specify which country, as it seems that all of them have a problem with the freedom the Internet gives to individuals.

Re:The final step. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524936)

I am glad it isn't coming to the United States.

Re:The final step. (4, Insightful)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524182)

I'm certainly not (really, the second they started taking state control of the local media this became only a matter of time), but maybe I can finally get the people who think that my anti Chavez attitude is somehow related to his economic policies to realize just how screwed up the Venezuelan government is.

Re:The final step. (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524232)

It seemed convenient for people to latch onto hate for him early one, what with him giving the finger to the US government and demanding profits from exploitation of natural resources remain in country.

But it turns out that he was an asshat, yep. I was one of those people, though haven't been for a little while now.

Re:The final step. (4, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524234)

But I though Hugo Chavez was a "man of the people" and a friend to the "average Jose" in his country.....

I thought it was a "Democratic Revolution" that happened in Venezuela when Chavez took over.

Re:The final step. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524304)

It's al bullshit (I'm venezuelan). He's just another bullshitter.

Re:The final step. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524484)

And lucky for you, you probably won't be able to post that post from within Venezuela soon enough.

Re:The final step. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524534)

It's al bullshit (I'm venezuelan). He's just another bullshitter.

How the fuck did he take over your country? Why is he allowed to stay in power?

You now have a dictatorship in all but name. WTF are you people thinking?!?

Re:The final step. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34525248)

It's al bullshit (I'm venezuelan). He's just another bullshitter.

How the fuck did he take over your country? Why is he allowed to stay in power?

You now have a dictatorship in all but name. WTF are you people thinking?!?

All you have to do is observe what's happening in the US, as the US is heading in the same direction and will arrive in a similar state unless those seeking to "fundamentally transform" the US are stopped. Little by little, government expands it's reach and power, colluding with communist and socialist groups and revolutionary organizations, taking over more and more of the private sector.

Let's just hope the people of the US have a better luck in "resetting" the government's priorities and reducing it in size & scope.

Re:The final step. (1)

Brafil (1933028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524550)

They said the same in China. They didn't follow this motto. Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do before judging them. Venezuela has been quite undemocratic for a long while, in spite of what Chavez et al claimed.

Re:The final step. (1)

Kelzar (1642061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524824)

'Democratic' doesn't necessarily mean liberal. Maybe the average Jose is more interested in stability, social justice, or some other such thing. Not saying that Venezuelans are or are not getting those things from the Chavez admin, just saying that "the people" rarely place liberal ideals on the top of the list, especially in the developing world. Look at Russia (and lots of other places). Lots of people there are more interested in prosperity and order than in liberalism.

Re:The final step. (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525144)

What's interesting is the question of whether this was inevitable, or whether he could have been a genuine backer of freedom if he didn't have to defend himself against most of the capitalist world.

The West's habit of trying to destroy any system of strong socialism, resulting in a "fight mode" becoming inevitable, makes it impossible to assess the true practicality of it.

Socialism never disappoints (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524148)

No government that relies on keeping information from the people is going to last.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524206)

how's that whole secret prisony tortury thing working out for ya?

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524830)

We know all about it, doing something with that information is another issue.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524212)

Tell that to the Chinese.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525294)

And the North Koreans and Cubans too....well we would tell them but most of them aren't allowed to read slashdot anyway.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (5, Insightful)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524298)

It has nothing to do with socialism, it's a standard political power grab. What it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue, thus distracting everybody from the real point.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524556)

One could argue socialism is just a memetic narrative justification in the mind that engenders actual, real-world behavior to spread itself, including forcing itself on people through "oooh, democratic legislation!"

It doesn't have to wear a black hat and twist its mustache while heaving a girl onto the railroad tracks to have a net effect of evil, in an ever-ratcheting, bloated obesity of an existence sitting atop the shoulders of people trying to move society forward.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524570)

It has nothing to do with socialism, it's a standard political power grab. What it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue, thus distracting everybody from the real point.

Socialism isn't just an economic philosophy. It's an all-encompassing political theory that de-emphasizes the individual and emphasizes the collective. The problem with socialism... demonstrated through the history of socialist governments... is that since we're not insects with a hive mind, individuals are going to rule that collective. And they've always been at the very least too nannying, and at worst, absolutely tyrannical. So this has everything to do with socialism, because the very philosophy is about a power grab... for the good of the people, of course.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524642)

Yes, because no non socialist government has ever tried to make it illegal to criticize the government.

Except of course for all that censorship that took place before the concept of socialism even existed, in pretty much every country that ever existed (I defy you to find one single country that did not have at least one year in its history where speech was totally and utterly repressed de jure, prior to Marx being born).

Ultimately, civil liberties are a totally and utterly separate question from every other part of politics, with the small exception that it is slightly easier to maintain them in democracies than other forms of government, assuming the majority of people actually want to have liberty.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (2)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525216)

Which is why the Scandinavian countries are oppressive hell-holes ruled by tyrannical dictators...

Re:Socialism never disappoints (0)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524634)

Your sig is idiotic.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

machinegunhand (867735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524854)

It may have nothing to do with socialism, but the behavior isn't uncommon amongst authoritarian (and often delusional) socialist leaders. As for your point about distracting from the "real point" by mentioning economics: It is most certainly related to economics in the sense that the marketplace is always subjected to a very high level of government control in a socialist market economy.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525150)

It has nothing to do with socialism ... it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue

Sorry, but it's socialists who always try to make everything into an economic issue.

We, the libertarians, are always ready to accept whatever motivation an individual person chooses, but socialists always reduce everything to the economic level.

Re:Socialism never disappoints (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524390)

No government that relies on keeping information from the people is going to last.

This is not a socialist government characteristic, it is a behavior shared by any authoritarian organization. You should read about the whole wikileaks thing for more details

not like other countries would do that (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524174)

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

No sir. No first would nation would ever do that.

The chief difference is that people in USA continue to tell themselves they are "free", despite all evidence to contrary, despite people imprisoned and tortured for politics reasons.

Re:not like other countries would do that (2)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524578)

Well, free speech is protected in the US somewhat better than it is in most of the rest of the world. Not necessarily because our elites are any more virtuous, but because they've realized that they can let us rant and rave all we want, and there still isn't a damn thing we can do about them.

We may be free, but we're utterly powerless.

Re:not like other countries would do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524772)

Free unless you say something that someone is insulted by, then you get sued, or if you say something a religionist is offended by, then you get jailed for hate speech.
You're free to say anything you like as long as nobody disagrees with it.

Yay freedom!

Re:not like other countries would do that (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525120)

That really describes speech in Canada.

Exactly how many people in the United States can you say have been jailed for insulting the Catholic Church, Islam, Scientology or Mormonism in the last 50 years?

weird how you can take any story ... (2, Insightful)

Punctuated_Equilibri (738253) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524622)

and turn it into an opportunity to vent against the USA. How about discussing the Venezuela story on its own merits? Single internet access point for the whole country, controlled by the government, good idea or no?

Re:not like other countries would do that (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525086)

Where is Wikileaks being censored? The newspapers in the United States and abroad continue to publish the leaks they get, I've yet to see or hear about Federal agents going after the New York Times or anyone else.

Google - "Latest Wikileaks" and right now there are new headlines from 3 hours ago.

Is the US going after Wikileaks for distributing thousands of stolen documents? Yes but those documents were classified and stolen. Is the US going to put the guy who stole the documents, Bradley Manning, in a deep dark hole for a long time? Yes they are, he had a security clearance and knew what the rules were, he broke those rules.

As far as censoring and hunting Wikileaks down, the US Government is doing a pretty poor job of it.

Re:not like other countries would do that (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525354)

Where is Wikileaks being censored?

I also posed that question in response to a similar comment in another thread and got hammered by moderators. Yet all you need to is post "US censoring Wikileaks" and you instantly get +5 insightful, for an evidence-free claim that flies in the face of existing evidence, common sense and rationality, just because it's the popular viewpoint here. Certainly the government's hands aren't clean and the fight for liberty is an ongoing one, but claiming the US has 'censored Wikileaks' is false, and it's not helpful to the cause to make highly emotional false claims.

Re:not like other countries would do that (3, Insightful)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525130)

liberals have become docile on slashdot. usually they are all over the first 50 post justifying dictators.

Re:not like other countries would do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34525212)

Those damn socialist and communists - umm wait a minute the U.S. is a capitalist republic - :o

Any form of government can be abused and controlled - unless your anarchist the question is do you want to be abused for the well being of the collective or abused for the private gain of an individual?

Re:not like other countries would do that (3, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525222)

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

This is what I've been trying to say about the whole Wikileaks thing. Cause and effect is not a one-way street here. Wikileaks and its supports say they're doing it to help make government more transparent and root out corruption, and done properly it can do that. The problem is that many people seem to have this implicit assumption that exposing corruption automatically means it'll be fixed, and thus release of information guarantees the overall amount of corruption is lessened, and thus it's always beneficial to release information. But that's not the only possible outcome. Another possibility is that closed governments will see what Wikileaks is doing as validation of their closedness, and open governments will "see the error of their ways" and become more closed. In other words, what Wikileaks is doing can cause the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

Release of secret documents needs to be done in a judicious and controlled manner. There has to be very little controversy that the documents released do in fact pertain to corruption (or alleged corruption). Most of the citizens have to agree that it's a good thing the documents were made public in order to generate the socio-political will to fix the corruption. If you fail to do that, like Wikileaks is doing by indiscriminately releasing almost the entirety of the State Dept. docs, all you've done is convinced governments that they need to work harder to keep their secrets, and given them the support of a large portion of their citizens in doing it.

Censorship is in every country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524190)

This is all about limiting Free Speech. After all, censorship is everywhere. The gov’t (and their big business cronies) censor free speech, shut down dissent and ban the book “America Deceived II”. Free speech for all.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526

Re:Censorship is in every country (1)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524240)

Do you realize just how full of shit you are? It's available at B&N and Amazon, as is the supposedly banned first book.

Actually given that Amazon puts Atlas Shrugged as suggested reading material for anybody who likes the book, I'm guessing no, you don't realize.

Pfft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524196)

News like these seem kind of tame these days. And the insinuations a bit hypocritical. I mean, how is this an outrage compared to the situation where USA shuts down websites without any law, court order or authority backing them ?

Great minds think alike Chavez and Lieberman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524202)

US congress need to pay attention. Venezuela is finding the best solution for you. US must copy all this in order to preserve "democracy and the American way of life".
Venezuela practically stole sen. Joe Lieberman ideas of free internet.

Give the CIA a mulligan (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524214)

Who else is all for a "do over" on their 2002 screw up?

Difference from what u.s. doing ? (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524216)

Lets see :

In countries which control free speech directly, such laws are created. Its blunt, direct, you know what it is and there is no mistaking what it is.

In countries like usa, you are told you have free speech. But your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people. And, you cant do that unless you have enough money, or means. The moment you get the funds/means to actually talk to millions of people, you become a threat, unless what you say goes to the liking of the system. And then you are silenced, very much in the way wikileaks is being silenced -> with excuses, financial pressure, indirect pressure.

Of course, even the above is a grand, grand assumption -> fat chance that you will actually be able to reach millions of people, even if you have the money. 3-4 corporations dominate news and 'opinion making', and if they dont give you airtime, you wont reach anyone. The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed. Since, one cannot become VERY rich, or, create a news channel that would cater to hundreds of millions without complying with the system and hierarchy, all threats become averted.

But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely.

To sum it in short :

In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.

In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.

one might err in that, 'as long as you are free to earn money, you can practice your freedom'. that is incorrect.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html [ucsc.edu]

this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms.

if, the chances of someone making it from the bottom to even middle ranks, is lower than a medieval peasant making it to a measly knighthood, it means 'you are free to try it' means 'you are free to try it, but fat chance you will make it'.

Nice moral equivalence (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524246)

In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.

What you failed to mention is that it is actually reasonably within the reach of most Americans because the media they need for speech is available in ways it isn't in China or Venezuela. There are thousands of companies that will sell you print supplies without fear that they'll face "reeducation through labor" for selling to you. There are dozens of video sharing sites. $200 buys you a Flip or something similar for making your own basic videos.

So, hopefully others will understand when I say "fuck you, you sniveling leftist brat."

and (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524328)

what you are missing is, the SELL part in the 'sell you print supplies'.

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

the 'dozens of video sharing sites' are what has been bothering the establishment up till now, because, they have been providing the unwashed masses the ability to reach millions without having to pay heaps of cash. hence, the attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, hence acta, hence coica.

i see that you havent read the post you replied to. for, all your moot points were iterated in it.

Re:and (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524358)

Nice backtracking. In your original post you said that to reach the multitudes, you would need to have enough money to buy off the media corporations—not to buy the supplies necessary to run a poster campaign, which is far cheaper. You're changing your position and it's sleazy as hell. Go troll somewhere else.

Re:and (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524482)

its not backtracking. its your reading comprehension issues.

there is no difference in buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, and buying fox news.

in case you have not noticed, what you speak of falls in the category of 'blabbering your opinion to people in your locale'. go buy $600 worth printing supplies, print flyers, and post around the town. or, go to a park, get on top of a barrel, and talk to 600 people.

the establishment doesnt give a zit whether you do that or not.

when you are rich enough to buy printing supplies and reach 200 million people, they do.

Re:and (2)

ryants (310088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524374)

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.

What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?

Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.

Re:and (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524508)

The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.

yes. for printing out 600 flyers, and posting around the town. accomplishing nothing, or changing the opinion of people regarding where the new park should be built. everything else remains the same.

talk about buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, idiot.

What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder? Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.

where does it lead to, is definitely not a fake illusion of freedom, in which you believe you are free, but you see that you dont have the money to practice that freedom. instead, the means to practice any freedom, are owned PRIVATELY, by very big entities and rich personas. basically putting you in the position of an ordinary peasant in medieval times, subject to the will of the lord to do anything.

which is the current state.

right wing nutjobs, in the wake of this, are walking self-deceivers. 'hey i am free - i may never have the means to practice it, but i am free !!'

Re:Nice moral equivalence (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524386)

> So, hopefully others will understand when I say "fuck you, you sniveling leftist brat."

I'm sure they will understand, if you find your target audience.

Perhaps you can distribute these affordable printed materials of yours at wrestling matches, or to tipsy concert-goers at the county fair.

Re:Nice moral equivalence (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524448)

There are thousands of companies that will sell you print supplies without fear that they'll face "reeducation through labor" for selling to you. There are dozens of video sharing sites. $200 buys you a Flip or something similar for making your own basic videos.

Just like in 99% of the rest of the world. With one major difference: The US spends in intelligence and military more than the ten next countries combined. And you have more draconian laws than the rest of the world. Sure, you like comparing your country to China, Venezuela or Iraq. Well, compared to most of South America and Europe the US is a police state. I live in Argentina, and you can say all the deranged shit you want about us, most of that shit funded on the lack of information most people in the us have ... most of you think that most of south america looks like juarez city in mexico ... well, it doesn't.

In my country I can say whatever I want, I have free access to the internet, there is a place for independent media on national TV, and unlike the us, we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools, we don't have anti-terrorism laws, we can't be wiretapped without a court order, or arrested without rights by some shadowy agency. And we don't spend most of our budget bombing other countries and funding CIAs, FBIs and DHSs. That is true for most of the world.

I know you have a hard time facing the truth, but most of the world has way more freedom than the states.

Re:Nice moral equivalence (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524826)

In my country I can say whatever I want,...we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools...

Well, which is it? Oh, sorry, I see, you can say whatever you want but the "religious right" is silenced. Yeah, that's real 'freedom of speech".

Re:Nice moral equivalence (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525092)

I didn't say that they couldn't "say" what they wanted, I say they couldn't push their agenda. There is a huge difference between expressing your opinion, and brainwashing thousands of people into believing that a zombie-jew from outer space is the messiah, using that power to become powerful and rich, and then using that power to play the system into allowing your brainwashing techniques to be used in public education.

Freedom of speech should always be a first priority, but it stops at that. Brainwashing millions of people is not freedom of speech. Religion is not freedom of speech, it's a crime against humanity.

Re:Nice moral equivalence (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524794)

There is no point in arguing with unity100, he does not understand the categorical difference between Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and the modern U.S.. He is incapable of understanding that if the U.S. was at all like the former two Julian Assange would either be dead by now or in captivity being tortured and that that is a significant, important difference.

Re:Nice moral equivalence (-1, Troll)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524856)

You're a real cock master. Listen to me, shove it. You're a real cocker now. Cock PENIS.

PENIS FOREVER!!! !!! !!!

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524274)

You do realize that if you had said that in medieval time you would be imprisoned and tortured? And that today the most significant punishment you face today for exercising your free speech is that people like me think you're an asshole? And that you paid exactly $0 to exercise this free speech?

In America, we have the right to Free Speech. But we also have the right to not listen to other people's Free Speech if we think it's stupid. There is no right anywhere for your 'Free Speech' to extend to all of humanity, as you seem to think it does.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524344)

You do realize that if you had said that in medieval time you would be imprisoned and tortured?

no. it was well within the possibility of a serf or peasant to become a knight, through any means. either by being bestowed a title and land, or, through acquiring small plots of land through incremental purchases or marriages to qualify for the minimum plot of land required for knighthood.

And that you paid exactly $0 to exercise this free speech?

most significant punishment i face today for exercising my free speech with $0 through a medium that corporations yet are not in full control of, are having to reply idiots like you who reply to a post without using their brain.

as you can see, internet is recounted as something yet out of control of the establishment. you CAN exercise free speech with $0 here. that is precisely why there are attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, acta, coica and others.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524284)

In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.

Please explain how that is the case outside of others subsidising such speech (eg. propeganda in this case) through the government. Unequal means of producing speech is another matter. The internet did a lot to level the playing field by significantly reducing the barriers to broadcasting various forms of speech. Youtube being a good example of this. Are the barriers to speech eliminated? Of course not. But they sure are a lot lower than in countries where government censorship is much more common.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524354)

Unequal means of producing speech is another matter.

no it isnt. if you are not able to have the MEANS to produce free speech, it means that you dont have free speech. in the end result, you cant use it.

The internet did a lot to level the playing field by significantly reducing the barriers to broadcasting various forms of speech. Youtube being a good example of this. Are the barriers to speech eliminated?

i cant even begin to understand why the fuck you are posting the above block. have you not been able to comprehend what you have read in the parent you have been replying :

..... The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

you have your free speech on the internet, YET. still, wikileaks incident shows you dont even have it, in case you start to make a big impact.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524322)

and how much did it cost you to post this?

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524364)

as much as it cost you to NOT read what you have been replying to.

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

ryants (310088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524338)

What utter rubbish. How many people do you think your moronic message will reach? How much did it cost you? How many people have WikiLeaks reached on a very shoestring budget? Sure, a lot of talk about silencing them, but it hasn't been very successful now, has it? How much do you suppose it cost Thomas Paine to publish Common Sense, whose message helped create America, and has been read by millions? In short, your theory that your rights are commensurate with your wealth in the US is absolutely crap.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524396)

as long as witless morons like you around, who cannot comprehend what they read, no message can reach anyone. explain me, fool, have you read and understood what was written in the parent post you have replied to, below :

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

moron. you have your freedom of speech, without having heaps of cash here on the internet. and that is the VERY thing the establishment is not liking, and therefore they are bringing acta, coica, and attacks on net neutrality to enable corporations to directly control content, and put a price on whatever you do on the internet.

you have your freedom, cheap, YET.

look at what happens to wikileaks still.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524376)

[ But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely. ]

Good luck voicing your opinion in China....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704444304575628410670226430.html [wsj.com]

The US is better than china, anyone can be free to twitter and tweet and post on facebook etc..., in china you bad mouth the government and you have to go to a "reeducation through hard labor camp".

http://worldjournalism.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/1-tweet-1-year-of-jail-time-in-china/ [wordpress.com]

Here are two sites where people can bad mouth the government in the USA, not shut down yet...nor should they ever be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/ [democratic...ground.com]
http://www.freerepublic.com/ [freerepublic.com]

As for your Money=Free Speech in America argument, are you talking about Talk Radio and TV?

Do you think anyone should be able to have their own talk radio station who has an opinion? I don't see any private or public talk radio stations in china airing anti-chinese government opinion, do you? Do you think everyone has a "right" to use a government provided photocopier so you can publish anti government flyers everywhere? Who pays for the toner, the paper?

The internet is a new vast and wild frontier where people can post their opinions to be picked up my Millions of citizens, be it either youtube, twitter, facebook or your own website.

Even the poorest individual in the USA can go into a public library and post things that can potentially be read by millions if not billions of internet citizens.

[this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms. ]

How many people in the above have internet access or easy access to it?

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/05/14/18-of-us-households-have-no-internet-access [webpronews.com]

Only 18% of households in the USA don't have internet, most of those are older people who don't care to have it in the first place. And last i heard you cannot be turned away from a public library for being "too poor".

What is the wealth distribution in China? China does have a growing Middle Class, but it is no where nearly as big percentage wise as the US.

im speechless. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524466)

there is now 6 idiots, who havent comprehended what they have read and replied to.

The US is better than china, anyone can be free to twitter and tweet and post on facebook etc..., in china you bad mouth the government and you have to go to a "reeducation through hard labor camp".

have you not read whats below, in the post you replied to ?

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

that isnt too hard to comprehend.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524398)

The difference is Obama hasn't taken state control of Fox News for spreading dissent about his presidency.

The US is chipping away at the edges of Free Speech, and constantly loses fights over it. Venezuela is putting the final nails in the coffin.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524440)

The difference is Obama hasn't taken state control of Fox News for spreading dissent about his presidency.

so ? obama isnt the one who is controlling the free speech. fox news et al, are.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524478)

No, Fox news is simply louder than the rest. Better at shouting from the rooftops. But Fox news may say whatever it likes, and that does not prevent me from saying whatever I like.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524520)

according to recent data, 80% of news distribution in us is owned by the parent companies of 4 major movie studios. fox is one of them.

fox doesnt prevent you from saying whatever you like. and it doesnt care. because, you can only say whatever you want to your friends, family, and close social circle. people have been doing it for thousands of years.

what matters is, whether you can say it to 200 million people.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (2)

Requia (1734466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524580)

So what's your solution? To prevent Fox news from speaking at all? Television is a limited resource, one way or another only certain people will be allowed to speak on it.

In the meantime, I'm speaking to you, and you are certainly not a friend, family, or part of my social circle.

  I can (and do) print political posters and put them up, and distribute flyers. So my voice is heard even by people I have never spoken too, and if the people choose to listen, I can reach a million people with a blog or youtube videos, without spending a single dime.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524494)

In any large scale system, freedom of speech cannot include the right to compel others to listen. If every person in the US -- 300million+ -- had the right to make everyone else listen, there would not be enough seconds in the year (about 31.5 million) for each speaker to even have one second.

So what we do have is a series of open fora, including the Internet. You can say whatever you want. You can be heard all across the nation by anyone who chooses to tune in. Guess what? Your posting on slashdot is an example of this.

Some people will read what you have to say even though we're not in your immediate circle. [BTW: I have mod points, but didn't mod you down even though I disagree with you, because that's not how moderation here is supposed to work.] If what you have to say is sufficiently insightful, people here might share it with others offline, and they in turn might share it, and it could become a meme that spreads throughout the US. This sort of thing happens, and not just with meaningless youtube fluff. My favorite example is The Last Lecture [thelastlecture.com] . On a more political note, the Drudge Report and other political blogs have arisen without a whole lot of initial funding or corporate sponsorship, solely through word of mouth and referrals.

TV and other mass media tend to be in the hands of big corporations. But this is not because they control free speech, but because most people have learned through experimentation which sources they trust with their scarce time to provide somewhat relevant information. New media (i.e. magazines, books) arise all the time, and it's possible to break into print without a lot of money; it just takes a lot of insight, time, and effort before people are willing to hear what you have to say.

So free speech works. You can say what you want, and if you are one of the few people who is sufficiently insightful, people might actually care what you have to say. If you aren't being listened to, it's probably because you aren't relevant enough; sorry.

Meanwhile, your claim that free speech works in China seems -- odd at best. Could you provide some specific examples?

[I've already modded in this discussion, so posting AC.]

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524542)

So what we do have is a series of open fora, including the Internet. You can say whatever you want. You can be heard all across the nation by anyone who chooses to tune in. Guess what? Your posting on slashdot is an example of this.

im tired of responding to the fools which have not read what they are replying to. internet is an abomination that the establishment wants to 'fix'. i have told that in my post you replied to. you seem to failed to understood it and bringing it as an argument.

ponder on why they are wanting to kill net neutrality, and charge cash from websites for traffic.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524602)

I've read your post, and the replies to your post, and then your idiotic asshat replies to those responses...

You seem to equate Free Speech with Equal Media Power. Nobody can discuss things rationally with you because your idea of free speech isnt anyone elses, because while they have brains, you only have brainwash.

No free speech without capitalism (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525190)

your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people

That's why no society can be truly free unless they have a capitalistic economic system.

When all the press is under the economic control of the state, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of the people.

Re:No free speech without capitalism (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525300)

and when the press is under control of 4 corporations to a 80% extent, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of people either. like news in us.

Venezuela Like Always (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524222)

This is OLD news. Since around march of this year things got worse here. For example, from my city in Maracaibo i CAN NOT enter places like ytdb.ru where i work and learn mysql. This and many other sites are limited/restricted and sometimes CANTV (The main ISP of Venezuela) drops the connection without mentioning nothing about upgrades / maintenance service / takeovers, etc.. They NEVER admit they have a cable problem, network problem, isp problem, nothing. they are perfect. With this mention here they will NEVER admit they will block somebody, restrict a place, etc..

Re:Venezuela Like Always (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34525332)

In the U.S., ISP's consider those features and are right now fighting to charge us for the privilege - and they are winning.

Venezuela, meet USA (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524238)

Good thing Venezuela doesn't have the power to arbitrarily take down infringing domains like the US does [wordpress.com] . There's no better way to highlight the fact the US has way too much power over the Internet than to look at what other governments would do given the powers the US assumes for itself.

Re:Venezuela, meet USA (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524320)

Except, perhaps, for .ve domains?

From TFA (1, Informative)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524286)

When you read the details on what is proposed by the Venezuelan government, it doesn't sound that unreasonable.
Makes you wonder why it's being spun as totalitarian and evil.

"The bill proposes applying limits on content in "electronic media" according to the time of day, with adult content reserved for programing after midnight.

Such limitations already are in place for TV and radio programing. It was not clear how they would be applied to the Internet

The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him."

Re:From TFA (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524388)

Haven't you heard? Hugo Chavez is an EVIL SOCIALIST DICTATOR; no more analysis needed

Re:From TFA (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524438)

The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him.

And I wish they'd get on with it. He's a man in serious need of being put six feet under.

My favorite moment was when Juan Carlos of Spain told him to shut up.

Re:From TFA (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524874)

From the same FA:

"Nowhere is the restriction of access to the Internet suggested. There should just exist protection of citizens' moral and ethical honor," said Villalba, who heads the National Assembly's media commission.

Doesn't that sound kind of contradictory? And doesn't seem the statement "protecting moral and ethical honour" just a tad on the broad side if it's just about porn and death threats? But it really doesn't matter why they implement this law, it's all about gaining a foothold, the stated reasons are just pretexts. For them it's porn and death threats. In the US, it's threats to national security. In my own country it's child pornography. Something a lot of citizens like yourself will approve of, thinking: "yes, we need to control that sort of thing". Something which it is hard to be against... hey, you are not in favour of getting the president shot, terruhrists, or kiddie porn, are you!?

And once the controls are in place, they are extended. In Venezuela it'll be anything opposing Chavez, for "destabilizing the country". In the US it's the DMCA. In the Netherlands, there was a proposal to extend the DA's power to take down kiddie porn sites with the power to remove sites "inciting violence" and then "inciting hatred". Another broad brush with which to tar undesirable opinions of a certain nature. Thankfully the proposal was shot down, but what struck me is that no one, not even the opponents of the bill, attacked the principle of such a law.

The dictator of Venezuela (1)

jonfr (888673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524380)

I do not know how Chavez is trying to fool. But it is clear that he is nothing short of a dictator. But he is moving in slowly in order to not get the people opposing.

Thankfully the Venezuelan people are soon going to oppose him and oust this evil presidency in Venezuela.

It is clear that Chavez is not worthy of being president of anything.

Re:The dictator of Venezuela (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524714)

But it is clear that he is nothing short of a dictator.

Is this something like the new defintion of fascist (="someone in politics who I think is an asshole")? Chávez is directly elected by the people (and don't give me the crap "just like Hitler" -- because that's not true).

I guess saying that makes me a raging Chavista (or is it "CHAFASCISTA!!11uno). If only there were some other words in the English language one could use for a more fitting critique of that populist...

Re:The dictator of Venezuela (1)

jonfr (888673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524804)

Often dictators gets elected. That is nothing to do with Hitler and never has.

Given his style of control over the past decade or so it is clear what path he has been taking. That path is no good and never is going too be good.

Re:The dictator of Venezuela (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524902)

No, it is more like Saddam Hussein. Those media outlets that support politicians who oppose Chavez either get shutdown or taken over by the government. Opposition politicians who gain any popular support are arrested and their property is confiscated.
However, Chavez is still not quite a complete totalitarian like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam (at least not yet). On the other hand, Venezuela no longer works by rule of law (to whatever degree it ever did, and what I have read leads me to believe that Venezuela had a limited and improving rule of law before Chavez took power).

At least they're honest (2)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524456)

And they won't call it a copyright enforcement measure.

Dont err in thinking you will be free on Internet (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524632)

all other means to access millions of people, OUTSIDE internet, requires huge capital or means. you need heaps of cash to buy 'printing supplies', as some commenter put it, to reach a hundred million people. you need heaps of cash to get your adverts on news channels. (that is if they accept your ad, even). you nead heaps of cash to get airtime. in short, your freedom is limited totally with your finances, and those who have finances determine who talks and who not.

at this point a lot of people err in thinking that 'you have internet !'... it is a mistake :

Internet is just a temporary 'abomination' establishment wants to fix.

in the current situation, an upstart like you and me can get up a site, and reach millions of people through it. actually, even doing that currently requires advertising capital or other means, however, lets say that it is much easier to exercise your freedom of speech on the internet than anywhere else. lets say, at least there are sites like this slashdot, this, that, already big traffic mediums in where you can reach people. so, we are dangerous.

that is precisely why they have come up with endless schemes to bring internet under control and make it like a private cable network, or publishing mediums, in which only the richest will be able to reach noticeable amount of people in a nation:

anti network neutrality : aims to allow backbone providers and isps to charge websites for the traffic - the more traffic, the more charge you will have -> so, if you happen to reach hundreds of millions of people perchance, with your free speech, you will need to have the heaps of cash to pay for it. if you dont, youre cut off from millions of people with every major isp that censors you. and it will be legal, and compatible with first amendment too !

acta : supposedly anti counterfeiting treaty, it gives censorship in the hands of a privately appointed commission from private industries, and gives the ability to shut down sites on dubious grounds, without court order.

coica : you know what it is. this is the government version of controlling.

there are a few more in the works.

so, as you can see, it would be an utter folly to think that 'we are free' on the internet. we are TEMPORARILY free, and the system is trying to fix that. once it 'fixes' that, you will need precisely similar amounts of finances in order to be able to be 'dangerous' with the power of your free speech. in that state, what will happen will be precisely be the same with the outside-internet life ; just like you are free to blabber to your friends, family, coworkers, people in your bar and post a few flyers around the town, you will be free to blabber in this or that forum, put up a small blog to see 50 people a day read your views and so on. but, you wont be able to set up a blog with $20 cost to you yearly, and reach millions, if your views get popular, or you have the finances to engage in medium amount of internet advertising. internet advertising also requires considerable money, and that is also a similarity with the outside-internet situation, but, it is still accessible for at least the middle class in regard to the amount required.

so, if the private interests reach their goal in ANY of the ways above, your freedom will be as limited on internet as it is limited outside internet : free in proportion to the amount of money in your bank. judging from the wikileaks incident, one can easily say that if you really become dangerous to the system, you will be 'taken care of'.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525178)

Completely wrong on that it takes huge capital to reach the masses without the Internet.

Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.

Of course your book or manifesto has to say something coherent and interesting enough that anyone out there would be interested in reading it. Of course even the neo-luddite writings of the Unibomber were published. Hitler did a good job at getting his book written, Barak Obama wasn't all that well known or wealthy when he started getting his books published.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34525286)

Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.

yees. isnt it. its that easy. pray, tell, how many people had reached to a hundred million people like that in the past year, from your own social circle ? neighborhood ? your town ?

inspired by USA government actions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524758)

against Wikileaks, no doubt.

Solidarity begins at home!

Sorry to hear about this... (1)

steeleyeball (1890884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524768)

My condolences to the people of Venezuela.

Disquieting Content (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524908)

"Disquieting content" is code for 4chan.org [4chan.org] , right?

The US has something similar NetNeutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34525182)

Subject says it all :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>