> There is no excuse for having laws against public criticism of an
> elected official.
>
> None.
>
> It's simply too fucking bad for Hugo Chavez if he doesn't like what
> the media says. If he was a real socialist he would not consider the
> threat of silencing any public voice. Instead, he would, as a man of
> the people, welcome the slings and arrows and see himself as the
> extremely privileged person that he is.
You must have a very poor memory or be very young. This is an incredibly naïve statement.
Without these laws the US would pour literally millions of dollars into smear campaigns that make slanderous accusations. The history of Central and South America is filled with examples as are other parts of the world. In some instances IIRC the US has spent more money spreading lies than all the legitimate media combined spent on real news. It is really easy to sit somewhere else and criticise such laws but the damage done by such propaganda campaigns unleashed by the US is quite real. They seriously undermine the ability of the Government to operate. Were he only to worry about indigenous voices criticizing that would be another matter but that is not reality. As I said before he's screwed either way so this is the best choice he can make under really shitty circumstances. Shitty circumstances brought about courtesy of the US. If you choose not to believe this is a real threat you need to read some history of US involvement in such things.
John Thornton