HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » Latin America (Group) » Globovision sanctioned fo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:48 PM

Globovision sanctioned for ... citing the Venezuelan constitution.

You cannot make this shit up.

(Caracas, 9 de enero. Noticias24).- Funcionarios de Conatel se apersonaron esta noche en Globovisión para entregar la notificación de la apertura de nuevo procedimiento administrativo, Ricardo Antela consultor jurídico del canal recibió el documento de la sanción.

En horas de la mañana de hoy, el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, Diosdado Cabello instó a Conatel iniciar una investigación al canal de noticias por la difusión “manipulada” del artículo 231 de la Constitución que habla de la juramentación del Presidente de la República.

Antela explicó que, de acuerdo al oficio recibido, la Comisión decide abrir un nuevo proceso administrativo a la planta por la difusión de cuatro micros en los que se hace alusión al artículo 231 de la Constitución debido a que “incitan al odio, a la zozobra y a las alteraciones del orden público”.

En ese orden, detalló que se prohíbe la transmisión tanto de los cuatro micros como la de versiones similares o parecidas. “Pareciera que nos están prohibiendo es que en la pantalla de Globovisión aparezcan mensajes alusivos al artículo 231 de la Constitución”.


http://www.noticias24.com/venezuela/noticia/145087/funcionarios-de-conatel-se-apersonan-en-globovision-para-entregar-una-notificacion/

34 replies, 1939 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Globovision sanctioned for ... citing the Venezuelan constitution. (Original post)
joshcryer Jan 2013 OP
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #1
joshcryer Jan 2013 #2
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #4
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #3
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #5
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #6
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #10
sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #13
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #14
joshcryer Jan 2013 #16
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #18
joshcryer Jan 2013 #19
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #21
joshcryer Jan 2013 #22
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #26
joshcryer Jan 2013 #27
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #33
joshcryer Jan 2013 #34
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #23
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #25
joshcryer Jan 2013 #28
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #29
joshcryer Jan 2013 #31
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #32
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #30
Marksman_91 Jan 2013 #24
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #17
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #20
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #7
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #8
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #9
joshcryer Jan 2013 #11
Zorro Jan 2013 #12
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #15

Response to joshcryer (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:04 PM

1. Not only could I not "make it up", I can't even fucking read it

without a Spanish-to-English dictionary and 2-3 hours to kill
doing the translation.

no cigar for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:09 PM

2. I can't find an English article with that detail.

And I bet if El Universal posted it on their English site they would just be dismissed here.

The only English article I found just talks about sanctions, it doesn't explain that Globovision is forbidden from discussing the constitution since it incites fear and anxiety, etc.

Here's a better link that Google translates more accurately: http://www.el-nacional.com/sociedad/Procedimiento-administrativo-Globovision-transmitir-Art_0_115191029.html

Go to Google Translate and paste that there or put it in Chrome which will translate automatically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:19 AM

4. hey thanx. I'll check it out. ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:27 AM

5. I'm sure the CIA is "letting the Venezuelans sort all this out" on their own.

Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:56 AM

6. Possible CIA involvement in Venezuela

 

Is justification for banning simply printing what the constitution says?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:28 PM

10. CIA involvement can mean MANY things, NONE of which good for Venezuelans

Including ginning up "popular" resistance and sabotage of Chavez's
Bolivarian Latin American Revolution, stealing the nations oil, etc.
and "invisibly" putting Chavez and his rightful successors on the
defensive, such that they appear to be 'repressive, dictatorial, etc."

One of the best documentaries ever made IMHO. Please educate
yourself, if you haven't seen this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:01 AM

13. That was an award winning documentary. I remember back then when it happened, the

Left in the US was so supportive of the Venezuelan people and so respected what they did and their choice of leader. On all the progressive democratic forums at the time, there was not one democrat who did not support the people of Venezuela. Then I began to notice the infiltration of Progressive boards by the anti-Chavez/Venezuelan people, propagandists and the sudden silence of previous supporters of Chavez in Congress.

The Wikileaks cables on Venezuela finally confirmed the reason for the hatred of Chavez, and it's not for the good of the people of Venezuela. Truth telling is a dangerous thing when the powerful do not have good intentions.

Still, I am encouraged that despite the infiltration of Left Forums here in the US, it is getting much harder for the propaganda to spread in today's world after the Bush years taught the whole world that no, we are not the good guys and the world supports leaders like Chavez while our own leaders are no longer respected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 05:51 AM

14. Yes, that was one of the best documentaries I've seen

I love the story behind it, how the documentary producers and film crew
"just happened" to be already ensconced in the Presidential Palace, doing
a relatively routine series of interviews with Chavez and other locals re: about how
the revolution was going, etc.. And then quite to their surprise, these events began
unfolding there in the Palace, and the film peeps just kept the cameras rolling to
document the whole coup from the inside as it were, and how the people surrounded
the Palace peacefully demanding their elected president be re-instated, making their
case so eloquently that eventually the Venezuelan military blinked, and the Palace
guard turned their guns on the coup instigators. What an amazing story that is,
captured so well by that film outfit.

Such a classic case of simply being at the right place at the right time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 07:42 PM

16. Rebuttal to that obvious and jarring propaganda piece full of lies:



"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is the greatest and most manipulative propaganda piece I have ever seen in my life. In fact, that movie is so full of lies and distortions and manipulations that if you buy it you are quite ignorant and misled.

After knowing about the lies in that movie, continuing to perpetuate them is blatant dishonesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:53 PM

18. Oh please.

Speaking of lies and distortion.

Is Chavez's rule a pain in the ass for Imperial Americana? most certainly.

Has Chavez been a perfect President? Hardly.

Is he the best thing that has happened to the Venezuelan people in terms
of raising the standard of living for the poor and middle class, redistribution
of wealth, etc. in a long long time? Yes, he most certainly is.

His detractors -- including you apparently -- oddly seem to dismiss the fact
of his overwhelming popularity with the poor and previously dispossessed, as
reflected by his continual re-election at the ballot box.

Fair elections don't lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:32 AM

19. Eh. He's practically buds with the USA.

Dude gives Americans free heating assistance, is the largest by far trading partner with the US of A, endorsed Obama not once but twice, sided with the USA on climate change at Rio+20 (what a truly progressive move that was), and to top it off, used the USA as his favorite Emmanuel Goldstein in his regular Two Minutes Hate on regular cadenas (chains, that are basically like the Emergency Broadcast System, which all stations must stop their programming and play; literally Big Brother realized).

Only pain he's caused is his immoral siding with dictators in North Africa and the Middle East. Which, btw, is ironic with how much he says that the USA meddles too much. Yeah, giving handouts to dictators, that's not meddling at all.

His electoral wins are impressive, no doubt. But electoral wins don't tell the whole story. Uribe got elected and will probably get elected again, that doesn't mean his policies are the best for the poor. Putin has won several times but that doesn't mean his policies are the best for the poor. Sometimes winning really has to do with your ground game more than anything. Representative democracy is kinda funny that way (I'm a proponent of direct democracy for that reason).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:56 AM

21. I hadn't heard that Chavez endorsed Obama at all, much less twice.

Google did not turn up anything indicating that Obama ever
received any such endorsement, and this snopes page also
debunks a rumor that Chavez had "donated money" to Obama.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp

Your claim may be totally true, I just couldn't find anything
on the web that said so.

Do you have a credible source to site that indicates these Chavez
"endorsements" of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:37 AM

22. Here ya go:

2012: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/chavez-castro-putin-endorse-obama/

2008: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/11/03/chavez_endorses_obama_kind_of

Hell, Chavez was on good relations with Obama until Wikileaks happened (where it was discovered one of our ambassadors insulted him). At that point it became convenient to harken back to Bush-era maligning of the US.



It's a damn shame too because Obama had no control over that ambassador and he was a Bush appointee if I recall correctly. It got worse when the US had to get rid of the Venezuelan ambassador that was caught on video talking about cyber warfare against the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:18 PM

26. I love the title of that first article

"Dictators across globe want 4 more years" indicating that this is Right-wing Anti-Obama website
trying to discredit Obama "by association" with the likes of Castro, Chavez, et. al.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/chavez-castro-putin-endorse-obama/#x7phYrxU6jXG3RQU.99

And the "kind of" qualifier in the second article is cute.

Nice job though, kind of "proving" your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:06 PM

27. First hit on Google.

What do you expect? The point is that they liked Obama (and for good reason).

Both Marila Castro and Chavez endorsed Obama in 2012, that's a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:56 PM

33. the Ven ambassador to the US was kicked out after Ven refused the US ambassador

the consulate chief in Miami was removed after the cyber warfare claim. Chavez then closed the Miami consulate resulting in Venezuelans in Miami not being able to vote among other issues. Consulates are supposed to serve the citizens of their native country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:19 PM

34. It looks like you're correct. Palmer was rejected.

I could've swore it was over wikileaks but it was a personal statement he made: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-12/31/content_11780099.htm

But yes, shutting down the consulate was purely calculated disenfranchisement, which, on this forum, was cheered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:26 AM

23. Chavez not perfect?

 

Has Chavez been a perfect President?

Please, list 3 things he has not been perfect about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:12 PM

25. Hint: NO one is perfect

1) Gaddafi
2) "During Chávez's administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled. The NGO found that the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 19,000 in 2011. Kidnappings have also become increasingly common. Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate."
3) In 2008, Chávez passed a decree designed to implement Conarepol's recommendation on the national police force ... The decree has been criticized because it was negotiated behind closed doors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:07 PM

28. IMO Rio+20 should have been the top of that list.

But kudos to you for coming out and saying something that a LOT of people here don't want to admit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:38 PM

29. heh

you'll have to say more than "Rio+20" for me to know
what you are referring to That keyboard is your friend,
most of the time anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:00 PM

31. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11083810



I am a big environment follower, for me the alliance between the US and Venezuela at Rio+20 was the most egregious thing I've ever seen. It completely, utterly, debunks the idea that Venezuela and the US are enemies or even on bad terms. They both support Business As Usual. They both discard the environment. They both don't care about addressing Climate Change. If you go and read Venezuela's statement at Rio+20 it is the most atrocious bit of double speak Orwellian garbage you'll ever read. Words simply cannot describe how utterly bullshit their statement is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:27 PM

32. Thanks for the information. This is helpful to know. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:42 PM

30. Thank you. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:47 AM

24. You DO know Chávez is practically still in power because of the US, right?

All that oil income comes mostly from one country, and that is the US of A. He talks all the time about how evil and imperialist America is, but that's all really just a show to gain support from his people, to try to convince them that they are a socialist republic unlike the capitalist nation of the United States. The reality is that if it wasn't for the relatively cheap oil we sell to the US, there would probably be no way to finance any of the government's social programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:23 PM

17. I agree about the CIA in Central America

 

What does that have to do with censoring a newspaper for showing the text of the constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #17)


Response to joshcryer (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:51 AM

7. here are the "micros" that the gov alleges incites hatred, panic, and public disorder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:05 PM

8. Venezuelan government news agency confirms it.

There isn't even an attempt to spin it. In consecutive paragraphs the AVN article states that Globovision showed the constitutional articles and clips of Chavez, and committed a crime by doing so.

http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/conatel-abrir%C3%A1-procedimiento-globovisi%C3%B3n-generar-zozobra-poblaci%C3%B3n

Explicó que la Gerencia de Responsabilidad Social de la Comisión, durante la verificación y análisis correspondientes, detectó que el canal de noticias ha transmitido durante el pasado mes de diciembre y en enero "una serie de micros y mensajes con las grabaciones de alocuciones y toma de posesión del Presidente de la República en otras oportunidades, así como la alocución del 8 de diciembre con el texto de la Constitución Nacional, especialmente, el del Artículo 231".

El artículo 27 de la Ley Resorte establece que no está permitida la difusión de los mensajes, por radio y televisión, que promuevan el odio y la intolerancia por razones religiosas, políticas, por diferencia de género, por racismo o xenofobia; que fomenten zozobra en la ciudadanía o alteren el orden público; que desconozcan a las autoridades legítimamente constituidas; e inciten o promuevan el incumplimiento del ordenamiento jurídico vigente.
----------------------------

The management of the Social Responsibility Commission, during the corresponding verification and analysis, detected that the news channel transmitted during December and January "a series of short videos and messages with recordings of orations the assuming power of the President in other opportunities, like the oration of of Dec. 8 with the text of the Constitution, particularly, Article 231."


Article 27 of the Resorte Law establishes that it is not permitted the diffusion of those messages, by radio or television, that promote hate and intolerance for religious or political reason, for gender differences, for racism or xenophobia; that cause panic in the citizenry or alter the public orden; that diminish legitimately constituted authorities; and incite or promote non-compliance of valid legal orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:33 PM

9. Godgiven Hair publicly asking to apply sanctions to Globovision

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:50 PM

11. Who's in charge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:29 PM

12. Zombie Hugo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:04 AM

15. (Reporters Without Borders) Globovisión faces sanctions for its interpretation of the constitution

http://en.rsf.org/venezuela-globovision-faces-sanctions-for-11-01-2013,43899.html

Venezuela’s National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) launched proceedings on 9 January against the terrestrial television station Globovisión over its broadcast of four clips about the postponement of the inauguration of President Hugo Chavez for a new six-year term, originally scheduled for the following day.

The videos are based on a specific interpretation of Article 231 of Venezuela’s Bolivarian constitution. The station was banned from rebroadcasting them and from expressing any opinion on the country’s Basic Law.


------------
Reporters Without Borders believes the charges against the organization to be excessive and once again based on an elastic interpretation of Article 27 of the Social Responsibility in Radio, TV and Electronic Media Law (Resortemec Law), which bans all content that might “incite hate or panic, or disturb public order”.

“However debatable Globovisión’s interpretation of Article 231 may be, how could the constitution be read in such a biased fashion as to mean it might incite panic among the population?” the organization asked. “Are citizens so immature that they would be incapable forming their own opinions? Is debate not allowed? Once again a poorly-written law is applied selectively, based on ideological considerations.

“These proceedings are disproportionate and absurd, as well as untimely, since the Supreme Court has just started to consider the issue raised by the Globovisión clips.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread