RCTV goes to Supreme Court, will they ever hear back?

January 29, 2010

For those that like to argue that RCTV was shut down because the law said so, let me remind you that the company went to the Supreme Court in 2007 to contest the shutdown of its air wave concession and has yet to hear from any of the suits and injunctions that have been brought to in fron of the Highest Court of the land since then. Some “Justice”, no?

Which brings us to the curent case, in which PSF’s and fanatics also parrot all the stuff about the “Law” and “legality” in a country in which this is quite rare, if it exists at all.

And yesterday RCTV Internacional’s lawyers went to the Supreme Court once again to appeal the decision by CONATEL, not that they necessarily expect an answer, given the recent history of the biased Supreme Court (controlled?)

The legal argument is quite simple if you are willing to take the time, even my favorite PSF’s and trolls should be able to understand them, if they bother to read them, which I doubt:

First of all, the “Law” did not include any provisions for cable and satellite operators. These are regulations created “a posteriori” by the regulator that defined what is a national broadcaster or not. As you know, they said that if a company produces more than 70% of its content, it is consider “National” and has to carry Chávez long and boring speeches whenever he feels he has to tells us something, however inmaterial.

This arbitrary regulation was decreed on December 22nd. 2009.  Because Art. 24 of the Venezuelan Constitution says very clearly: No legalislative disposition can have a retroactive effect, then, this became the law or the regulation only on that date,not earlier. It would be illegal to apply it earlier.

But RCTV Internacional was shut down on Jan. 23d. based on Conatel’s evaluation on the 90 days prior to the shut down, despite the fact that since Dec. 22nd. RCTV Internacional has broadcast less than the 70% of its programming made in Venezuela, in order to be considered an international cable or satellite channel and thus not be required (by LAW!) to broadcast Chávez’ “Cadenas”.

In fact, despite the claim by the Minister of Telecommunications that RCTV has not gone to the regulator, on Jan. 13th. RCTV laywers handed in 5 boxes of documentation showing that RCTV has adjusted its programming, so as not to be considered a national broadcaster.

But Chavismo is not known for its respect of its own Constitution or the Law, just for the fanatical parroting of the official line (As given by the Dictator) without any thought or interpretation.

The question is whether we will ever hear or not from the Supreme Court. Call me skeptical, but I doubt it, not as long as Chávez controls the destinty of all of its members.

8 Responses to “RCTV goes to Supreme Court, will they ever hear back?”

  1. Arturo Says:

    Octavio – why do you persist in misleading your readers. The 70% programming rule is not the only factor taken into account when deciding if a channel is nacional or internacional.

    Other factors such as the capital behind the channel; where does the advertising come from?; what nationality are the technicians; where is the staion’s headquarters; – all these factors are taken into account by the ente rector of Venezuelan airwaves Conatel.

    RCTV is a Venezuelan channel and not an international channel whatever way you look at it.

    Investigate Venevsion+ and you will see that Cisneros has been far cleverer that Granier in covering his interests from Conatel.

    Nota bad try to make RCTV’s case but once again estás reprobado.

  2. HalfEmpty Says:

    12 Trolls who changed the world lemme show you mai list:

    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -

  3. moctavio Says:

    TROLL ALERT!!!!!! Arturo, Off Topic does not address issue

    TROLL ALERT!

    7. The political dissenter/martyr troll

    If your blog is interesting, chances are it’s because you take a stand on things. You have political views you feel passionate about. You build a community of people who are interested in these things and who interact thoughtfully and productively about said things. Heck, some people even manage to disagree civilly. Until political dissenter/martyr troll comes around, starting fights with everyone in a comment thread, spewing its passionate anti-whatever-you’re-into views all over the productive discussion. This troll will likely get mouthy about how pathetic a blogger is for not entertaining dissenting opinions, all the while only being interested in hearing itself talk (or type, as it were). Political dissenter/martyr troll, what good do you think you are doing? Whose mind do you think you are changing? Troll, you are an asshole.

  4. Michel Says:

    Don’t feed the troll…

    Now, going back chatting with thinking, normal people, I think that, if ever, the TSJ would say something BEFORE the September elections if: 1.- The international pressure gets bigger and the animal starts losing contracts/allies over it and 2.- The case is taken to an international court respectable enough to cause 1. They would say something AFTER the September elections if by that time 1 and 2 happen, and 3.- IF the elections actually take place… I think the animal’s game is to actually find a cause to suspend them, just as the parochial councils’ elections were suspended.

  5. deananash Says:

    There is no ‘rule of law’ in Venezuela. Just as there is no Democracy in Venezuela. Words don’t mean what Hugo (or any other individual) says they mean; they mean what an agreed upon standard says they mean. (Think Oxford Dictionary of English)

    Now here’s the problem, the opposition is playing Chavez’s game, AS IF there was ‘rule of law’ in Venezuela. And any clear thinking individual realizes that they’re never going to win. Gotta change the game….

    If someone tried to expropriate my property, without compensation, I would physically fight them. If not at that exact moment, then afterwards. What I wouldn’t do is lie down, roll over, and take it.

  6. marc in calgary Says:

    cleverer Arturo? and you are dropping a lot of necessary letters in your commentary, is your spell check switched off?

    It is one thing to legislate for local content, to ensure a home grown broadcasting or publishing industry. It’s quite another to legislate (or to find through court action) for your own political slant to be given favor.

    And that seems to be what’s stuck in the craw of Hugo. Nobody in the free world should legislate for “respect” in the media. If people think you’re being disrespectful, guess what? they will stop watching your channel, stop buying your newspaper. That is how it works in the free world.

  7. Isa Says:

    Arturo you lying twerp, if you read the resolution RCTV Internacional was suspended for a very specific article ART. 10 of the resolution, nothing to do with capital. In any case, read the article, nothing can be retroactive as simple as that, so go with your lies somewhere else. How much do you get paid to come here and comment, because that is all you Chavistas know how to do, profit from the revolution.

  8. rodolfo Says:

    You and some of your readers may be interested in the podcast of a recent radio program aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) addressing the issue of the recent shutdown of RCTV (“download the mp3 file from http://www.cbc.ca/q/pastepisodes.html at “Q the podcast: 2010-02-03 Joe Perry” – only the first 21 minutes).

    I think the radio host Mr. Jian Ghomeshi may have meant well, at least I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I was very disappointed because the program failed to communicate historical and present-day realities.

    RCTV’s representative, a Mr. Elias Bitar, was terrible, he did not answer the questions posed to him and did not present a clear position. The rep from Reporters without Borders was slightly better but he also digressed and was not clear enough, the much too polite Frenchman, although at least he was clearly aware of Greg Wilpert’s agenda. No surprises from the latter, well-spoken, smooth talker with a very clear partisan agenda totally in support of Chavez (I did write a note to the radio host to let him know that introducing Greg Wilpert as “free”lance writer is at least misleading and not enough to provide his listeners the background needed to understand Mr. Wilpert’s expressed views).

    Unfortunately, unsuspecting Canadian listeners would not be fully-informed after listening to this program, perhaps confused, none the wiser… but then it is a complex issue to deal with in only 20 minutes.

    saludos, rodolfo


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,241 other followers

%d bloggers like this: