![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
A famous Spanish singer, Alejandro Sanz, has been banned from performing
Many reading this might think that government responses like those in Venezuela and North Korea could never occur in a democracy like the United States. Yet, we can see a recent example of government censorship in this country. Last month, the Senate voted to condemn the liberal organization “MoveOn.org” for its publication of an ad questioning the credibility of the top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. The organization bought a full-page ad section in the New York Times and wrote the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House
The reaction of those in power is different in the three examples above, but the concept of free speech is still at issue in each. Both Hugo Chavez and Jung Il Kim seem intent to wipe out the opposition’s viewpoints, which is every dictator’s dream! In contrast, although Moveon.org’s action was controversial, freedom of speech is protected by First Amendment rights in the United States and it is an acceptable action to openly criticize the government if you do not feel they are fully carrying out their duties. Thus, government’s response to the ad is probably in violation of the Constitution. All three countries should try to understand the criticism and solve these problems to make way for a better future. Freedom of speech is a very important part of democracy. However, there are still some limitations in our society.
What do you think some of the limitations are? What do you think of the U.S. Senate’s motion to condemn MoveOn.org’s ad?
(Anonymous)
Condemnation in Congress
I would like to learn more about Congress's move to "condemn" the ad purchased by Moveon.org mentioned in this entry. There have been recent House efforts to "condemn" the "World War I-era killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks" as a genocide(1). My questions are:
A. Is congressional condemnation merely symbolic, or are specific actions taken toward the condemned party?
B. How does this concept of condemnation tie in to Congress's legislative powers and duties?
C. What are the histories and traditions of moving to "condemn" both people and acts in the context of the American democracy? Is it a recent trend?
D. When is condmenation useful and at what point has it become an attempt to defame a particular group for purely political reasons?
Thanks to anybody who can help me or comment on these points!
(1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWW8W
Re: Condemnation in Congress
A great resource I've found is CongressLink.org, at which you can see some historical censure/condemnation Cases and do some reading about the general history of Congress.
This one, from 1844, was interesting to me:
Benjamin Tappan (D-Ohio)was censured for releasing to the New York Evening Post a copy of President John Tyler's message to the Senate of April 22, 1844 regarding the treaty of annexation between the United States and the Republic of Texas. As a result, he did not run for reelection.
This case resembles the Moveon.org condemnation only that it generally relates to the interaction of government and media. Though in this case, the action is directed more at the non-profit organization and in the former they seem to be punishing a representative for some breach of classified or confidential information. Perhaps a more appropriate place to look into comparisons would be the Valerie Plame case. Certainly worthy of more exploration. Thanks for your inquries!
(Anonymous)
Re: Condemnation in Congress
Does it seem to anybody else that Congress's time would be better spent on legislation that carried actual legal weight than on 'condemnation?' aimed to end someone's political career? If a person has broken the law, there are measures to deal with it (judicial branch of government, not legislative). If a person has not broken the law but his/her actions are condemnable, isn't it time for Congress to re-examine the law and not that person? Although in cases such as genocide it might make sense to symbolically condemn... thoughts from anybody?
Re: Condemnation in Congress
In Article 1, Section 5, the Constitution allows the Senate and House to "punish" their members for disorderly behavior. This is done by a vote of censure, which requires a simple majority. There is no penalty attached to a vote of censure, but in a collegial body it is a severe rebuke, which usually ends the person's political career. The most famous censure was of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954, for conduct unbecoming a senator. By contrast, a two-thirds vote is required to remove a senator or representative from office.
Congress can also pass resolutions expressing disapproval of anyone or anything that upsets it. Known as "Sense of the Senate" of "Sense of the House" resolutions they measure the prevailing sentiment in Congress but they do not carry the force of law. Thus there are no penalties involved with these resolutions. They are just collective rebukes by the elected representatives of the people.
More about the history and procedures of the Congress can be found at www.senate.gov and www.house.gov
(Anonymous)
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
Re: Freedom of Speech and Democracy
p.s.
(Anonymous)
banning singer?
I'm glad that one respondent corrected the error in what is an interesting post and discussion. The singer is being allowed to perform in this arena. I think that is shortsighted, and in principle public facilities should be open to performers regardless of their views. However, this is quite different from banning certain performances in the country altogether.
(Anonymous)
Re: More on Venezuela
On Venezuela's referendum this Sunday
Daniel Hellinger
President Hugo Chávez has called Venezuelans to the polls in support of his quest to construct “21st century socialism." On December 2 they will vote on two packages of amendments to the 1999 Constitution, which already lays out an innovative blueprint for government, mixing principles of representative government with participatory democracy.
Most of the media has focused on revisions that would expand presidential powers to limit speech and detain individuals during states of emergency and would extend the presidential term from six to seven years, permitting indefinite re-election as well. Mayors and governors would still be subjected to term limits, and critics ask why the national executive should operate under different rules. Although the bar would be raised modestly, Venezuelans would still have the right to petition and force a recall election after the midpoint of a presidential term is reached.
The emergency provisions are not radically different from those found in many other constitutions and were added by the chavista-controlled National Assembly because of the complicity of the media in the short-lived coup of April 2002. Some chavistas worry that the broader emergency powers might be turned against them someday.
Political violence is rising, with the international media too quickly believing accounts laying blame on government supporters and failing to report attacks on pro-Chávez demonstrators. In this polarized climate the contest once again becomes revolves around Chávez and less on the issues. A large block of voters (roughly 40 percent) identify with neither side, but their votes have usually broken favorably for the president. More likely enough Venezuelans will feel compelled once again to support Chávez, but his margin of victory may be narrower than in recent years. Rejection of one or both sets of reforms cannot be ruled out, however, especially since retired General Raul Baduel, a hero to chavistas for his actions to defeat the coup of April 2002, has spoken out strongly against the reforms, equating them to a coup.
The referendum comes at a time when neo-cons and anti-Castro figures entrusted with Washington’s Latin America policy are seizing on Venezuela’s economic and diplomatic accords with Iran as pretexts for intervention. These militarists darkly warn of Iranian “terrorists” using Venezuelan territory for safe haven. Increasingly, they feed a compliant media “analyses” painting Chávez as “crazy” or, worse, a bloody tyrant. As the end of Bush’s term nears, we can expect them to ratchet up the propaganda machine against Venezuela.
Provisions ensuring equal representation of women on party ballots, outlawing discrimination, and giving the vote to young people have attracted scant attention in the media compared to coverage of changes to the presidential term, emergency powers, and new articles dealing with forms of property.
Echoing opposition voices, the international media wrongly presume that the amended constitution threatens private property. Private property in fact is given equal status to forms of state or collective ownership of the national oil company, cooperatives, micro-enterprises, co-managed or worker managed firms, etc.
The most ambitious parts of the reform are those attempting to redesign the “geometry of the state." These articles create a new branch of “popular power” consisting of councils composed of representatives (voceros, or spokespersons, is the preferred chavista term) of local, grassroots community organizations that will directly allocate funds for projects. These councils will be organized on the level of “communes” within municipalities; their funds will come directly from the executive, bypassing mayors, governors, and state and municipal legislatures.(To be continue...)
On Venezuela's referendum this Sunday
Why this change? President Chávez hopes through this mechanism, and through the re-organization of his supporters in the new Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to strengthen direct, “protagonistic” democracy, which in his view and that of many of his supporters has been repeatedly co-opted by opportunists and professional politicians. The communal councils and grassroots alternative economic structures will have to co-exist with capitalism and the political institutions of representative democracy, but over time they are to expand their presence and influence, flowering eventually into “twenty-first century socialism.”
Observers of Venezuela can easily find reason to be optimistic or pessimistic about this project. Several of the government “missions” in areas of health care, urban land reform, cooperatives, sanitation and water have produced inspiring examples of participatory democracy at the grassroots. However, corruption and cronyism continues to plague the cooperative movement, the subsidized "Mercal" markets, and the administration of community grants. Politicians with personal connections to the government can displace genuine grassroots councils merely by obtaining certification of themselves as “authentic” representatives. Venezuelan socialism will for the foreseeable future be less about democratizing control over the means of production than about democratically distributing a bounty that springs from the subsoil -- oil.
(Anonymous)
Re: More on Venezuela
What are your thoughts on the activities of Pakistan? How does Musharraf's decision compare to Chavez's? Why is the U.SA so friendly to Pakistan but not to Venezuela?
Thank you.
More on Venezuela
I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to converse with any of you interested in Venezuela. Here I'd like to make one correction of something I said in the talk, and then I'll update you a little and make a comment.
The correction: I said that the 36 hour workweek had been removed from the reforms of the constitution to go before voters on Dec. 2. Now I understand that the provision to shorten the workweek from 44 to 36 hours is still in the set of proposals. Like several other provisions, this one is being debated intensely, and not just by employers. Some union leaders are concerned that the provision will ultimately change the workweek and require more weekend labor.
Of all the proposed reforms, the one that most concerns me is article 337, which gives the president additional power to suspend rights during states of siege. It should be noted that there are checks on this power in the form of powers given to the Assembly to over-rule the president. Nonetheless, in my view, it is a very serious mistake to open the door to this kind of possibility.
Overall, however, I think we have to respect the outcome of the vote on December 2 as the will of the Venezuelan people. These questionable provisions of rights are not so different from those found in many Constitutions, including that of the U.S
(Anonymous)