|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/05/07
Media Crackdown: Chávez and Censorship
by Roger Atwood
In December 2006 Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez will be seeking reelection in one of the most restrictive legal climates for press freedom in Latin America.1 Laws enacted since late 2004 by the Venezuelan Congress, where Chávez’s party and its allies hold a solid majority of seats, have sharply reduced the latitude with which Venezuelan media can report on political figures in their country and have strengthened the central government’s power to fine or imprison journalists and close down news outlets. The new statutes, with draconian punishments for offenders, run contrary to the trend throughout Latin America of liberalizing press laws and widening space for debate and editorial opinion. This article will review the new legal restrictions on the media, describe their effects so far, and offer some predictions as to their impact on debate in the upcoming presidential campaign and beyond.
One of the new laws’ key elements is a reform of the penal code to fortify so-called “insult laws,” which bar any potential criticism of high public officials. Another law dictates content on television and radio broadcasts. While the new laws appear aimed at encouraging reporters and opinion writers to restrain themselves in what they write or broadcast, the legislation also gives authorities wide discretion to punish–if authorities choose–journalists and the news organizations for which they work.
Despite the newly restrictive legal system in which the media operate, Venezuelans still enjoy fairly lively political debate in the press and society. Legal scholars, editors, and free-press monitoring groups say the new codes, which came fully into effect in June 2005, have already blunted some of the harshest criticism of the government among opinion writers, however. More importantly, the laws have created a pernicious climate of self-censorship among reporters that has begun to affect the quality of coverage and public debate. The new restrictions have come into force in a context of growing intolerance of dissent by the government, following a long period of turmoil marked by a short-lived coup against Chávez, a sixty-two-day general strike, and a recall referendum that Chávez won handily, all since 2002. During those struggles, some mass-media outlets took an overtly anti-Chávez stand, with some television channels, for example, refusing to show pro-Chávez demonstrators while lavishing coverage on anti-government rallies. Supporters of the new laws say their objective is to force media owners to be more responsible and objective in their coverage, while critics say the laws go too far in restricting freedoms. At stake is how, and even whether, media in Venezuela will be able to fulfill the crucial role that media play in democracies everywhere: informing citizens and giving them the tools to debate government policies and priorities.
Gag Me with a Law. Insult laws or “gag laws,” as they are also known, have a long pedigree. Only fifteen years ago, nearly every country in Latin America had some statute on the books prohibiting disrespectful or abusive speech toward the president, high officials, or government institutions. Vaguely worded and seldom enforced, such laws generally posed few real barriers for the news media or public at large, at least during periods of civilian rule. They did, however, create a de facto privileged class of people–high public officials–who enjoyed stronger legal protections than everyone else. The Inter- American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) recommended the abolition of such laws in 1994 and most countries have since done so, including, most recently, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala, and Honduras. In those countries, high government officials remain protected by ordinary libel and defamation statutes, similar to those in the United States, which also protects ordinary citizens.
Venezuela’s current insult laws date from 1964.2 Although rarely enforced, these codes threatened jail for those who “offend in speech or writing or in any other way show disrespect for the president.” 3 A long list of other high officials, including state governors and cabinet ministers, enjoyed similar protections but with lighter punishments for offenders.
In light of the IAHCR’s recommendation and international support to abolish insult laws, the Venezuelan Supreme Court took a nationalist tone in its ruling upholding the constitutionality of insult laws in July 2003, claiming that global calls to retire such laws do not apply to Venezuelan “reality” because they “act as a barrier to the abuse and disrespect of freedom of expression and those situations that endanger the State itself and that could affect the independence of the country.”4 Congress then passed a thorough reform of the Venezuelan penal code that took effect on 16 March 2005. Insult laws and other statutes that could be used to restrict freedom of press and expression were strengthened and extended to more areas of society. The following officials were added to the list of authorities protected from offensive speech: members of Congress, the military command, and the national elections board. Virtually every prominent public official in Venezuela is now legally entitled to seek redress for any speech or text deemed offensive or disrespectful, whether true or not.
Roger Atwood was a Knight International Press Fellow in Venezuela in 2005. He is author of Stealing History and a Visiting Researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Latin American Studies.