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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.