Global Voices Advocacy » Laura Vidal

Venezuela: Concerns About Controls on the Internet

Laura Vidal — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:35:19 +0000

Debate is heating up in Venezuela after a series of decrees and statements from President Hugo Chávez, who questioned how the Internet is being used in the country. Many are interpreting these statements and policy proposals by the Assembly that there is the desire by the government to control the Internet in Venezuela.

After almost a year of discussion regarding the decree that questioned the Internet as a priority, these concerns are appearing once again online. Much of the government's concerns were demonstrated when a bit of news was falsely declared in the forums of the site Noticiero Digital, an online Venezuelan newspaper that Diosdado Cabello, the Minister of Public Works and Housing had died. The false information remained published for two days, and was picked up and republished on other blogs. It was two days until the site's administrators took the information down and made the correction.

This was one more example for the Chávez government to say that there should be some controls on what can be published online. He declared on television that the Internet should not be an open place where everyone can publish whatever they can, with no control whatsoever. He argued that every country should put its own norms and rules to avoid spreading false information and create uneasiness.

As usual, online movements are trying to figure out the future consequences and to clearly understand the intentions of the government, as well as the reactions of the people. As it has become a tradition in Venezuela's political dynamics, a great number of voices try to identify the problem and either clarify the real objectives or fight against them. For some, this is a misunderstanding caused by manipulation in media. For others, it is the approach of a dreaded shadow of repression already seen in Cuba and Iran, two of Venezuela's government's closest allies.

According to Reporters Without Borders [es], applying restrictions will not be a solution for false news over the web. They also argue that this is an excuse to control a space that the government has not been able to control before.

To respond to the legal maneuvers that have been taking place, the group Tod@s en Red [es](Everybody Online) created a document in which several points of discussion are suggested in order to underline the basic importance of the access to Internet. Their main goal is to circulate the document on the web and discuss it. They also suggest to spread the ideas through Twitter, Facebook, and also sign and comment on the site. Some of the points they underline are:

* To promote information literacy as a social right, since the development of skills in computers gives the citizen new possibilities to learn by him or herself and also to collaborate in group projects.

* To ask the State and the private sector to contribute to the development of infrastructure in order to amplify the access to technology and overcome the gap that is still existing in Venezuela.

* To recognize that Internet is not luxury, but a key tool to fight against poverty and to reach national objectives in development.

On the blog Webarticulista [es], Juan Páez Avila discusses:

It's impossible to hold the web responsible for this. It is a tool used not only to inform a good or bad intentioned forum participant, but also to favor the development of nations.

Even when the case could be limited to investigation around the forum participant that made the comment (since the Constitution forbids anonymity) what is alarming is that the President made a point and suggested not only an investigation, but also to think about regulating how the Internet works in our country. This, according to already known experiences is an order to censure an specific media or cause self-censorship.

From the other side, Pascual Serrano discusses the real implications [es] of the President's speech.

What the Venezuelan president was actually condemning was the publishing of false information. He argued that media “can't be free to say whatever you feel like. It is necessary to follow the rules of the Constitution”. He also asked the Public Prosecutor's Office to act against media that publishes false information online, as it happens in the United States, Spain, or Colombia.

(Nevertheless), the correspondent of El País in Caracas, Mayte Rico titled the story “Chavez says Internet ‘Cannot be Free'”. This is a clear example of manipulation. Let's think about it. Here's an example: Do we think that citizens can be free to kill their neighbors if the don't like them? Of course not, “no”, will be the answer. Does that mean that we think that “citizens cannot be free”?

To prove his point, Pascual shares the link in which Chávez explains his reason in the video [es] with the source.

Mercedes Chacín also argues that there is a lot of manipulation and says [es]:

Until now, no country in the world had been able to get a line in the international press for putting in practice this kind of solutions. Nevertheless, Venezuela receives headlines and front pages (…) just because they did what other nations, completely justified and in order to improve communication efficiency, chose to do.

(According to the press, Chavez…) doesn't ask for, doesn't think, doesn't declare; the President “attacks”.

From another point of view, César Carrillo underlines how important the Internet and free connection is vital for Chavez's project in his post “Revolution and Internet: Doubling the Score”,

(On the Internet) there's not only one main actor. We are all the main character. But it does not mean that all of those that participate actively as web-surfers online connected to one another in a global reach and perspective can't be responsible according to the Law.

There are people speculating about a possible censor, a gag law, or a filter within the sovereign law from our revolutionary government. If that happens, it will be a terrible mistake. That measure won't favor our process. That doesn't add up, it subtracts.

In addition, Tomás Horacio Hernández reacts to the opinion of one of the government's spokespersons:

The Public Ombudsperson, Gabriela Ramírez, says that “Websites made for the expression of free opinions should be closely attached to the Law in order to avoid disturbance of the peace” and the rule of law is as absurd and contradictory as to say that human beings are free, as long as the State permits it. Why should anyone has to force me to read something, impose me what I have to think about it and make that media responsible if I don't act according to the script?

The sources of most part of the debate are located in the documents in which the projects and decrees have been written. The group Todos en red has a space called “Papeles para el debate” (papers for debate) in which the main documents can be found.

NGOs: Defending the voices

Laura Vidal — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:49:16 +0000

At the end of our first day of open work, GV founder Rebecca MacKinnon put an important idea on the table: censorship is not only a political or technological problem; it is also a social problem. Thus, it is important to encourage bloggers to resist; to keep blogging. In this last task, the NGOs are one of the most valuable resources for bloggers who need help to keep blogging actively for their causes. The main question for the session was how NGOs can help more effectively.

Elijah Zarwan, from Human Rights Watch pointed out some of the tasks an NGO must follow in order to efficiently help people in need. Taking his experience in Egypt as a start, and quoting certain Egyptian bloggers, he made clear that an NGO must inform people about their rights and train them to communicate, encourage local support, and connect with people around the world. These bloggers also underlined the importance of spreading the word about the abuses taking place in Egypt.

Thus, as an NGO, to help repressed activists is a matter of commitment. NGOs and activists should work together instead of working for each other. They need to listen carefully, and listen to the right people: there should also be contact with people that don't speak English and who live outside the big cities. NGOs should also support activists, work on prevention, try to find allies inside the government and respond as quickly as possible.

Internet has changed a lot the problems surrounding freedom of expression in many ways. As more people become authors, activists, and information sources; there are more voices to be heard and to be protected. According to Clothilde Le Coz, from Reporters Without Borders, a new space for advocacy for journalists has opened with Internet activism. This NGO specializes in putting pressure on governments in order to make sure they comply with the commitments taken. For them, blogger participation is the main source of information. Without them, their work would become fiercely difficult. They strongly advise bloggers to work on prevention and not wait until censorship affects them directly to fight against.

Nasser Weddady gave interesting examples of how bloggers and NGOs have worked together in order to make people aware of censorship situations happening in countries apparently far away. He illustrated with the example of Jane Novak, who carried important work as an activist against the Yemeni government from her home. The main question for this activist defender was “why should we care?” and underlined, apart from the need of defending Human Rights in any country of the world, the importance of connections among governments and how putting pressure on the authorities of the West can be helpful for activists in the East.

The NGO Tactical Tech, represented by Stephanie Hankey presented the tools they use to help activists through technology in order to remain anonymous. Also, they work with marginalized communities in order to make them aware of their rights and to communicate safely. So far, they have trained 1500 advocates and independent journalists. One of the most important tasks is based on information, especially in what it comes to the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of activist, in order to help people to take their own decisions. They put the light on the hidden challenge of blogging anonymously.

Finally, Antony Loewenstein made an interesting summary on censorship in countries such as his native Australia, a place in which censorship takes another shape. Who are the ones to decide what is convenient or not in the Web? This points out the problems that are merging when society and Internet users decide to censor the content on the Internet. He focused on the current Australian situation and in the Asia Pacific region and how NGOs can efficiently protect online activists and analyzed the prejudices and preconceptions in the West around repressive goverments. “I’ve long believed that activism must be mainstreamed to be truly effective, rather than just the concern of a minority. Our job as journalists, activists, NGOs, bloggers or concerned citizens is to bring the stories of the world to a media that welcomes localism and shuns complexity. These rules of the game are ripe for change.” At the end, it was clear that one of the main goals for the future of blogger activism will be to find a way to work together and eliminate the dichotomy that separates us, in an absurd way, as Easterners or Westerners.