What seems to escape almost everyone in this (one-sided) debate is that the renewal of the license of RCTV has virtually nothing to do with any suppression of dissent or denial of freedom of expression. Allocation of a 'lease' to a common property (bandwidth) is normally controlled by a government agency which allocates frequencies to stations/networks who agree to abide by the rules. In the US the rules include such things as suppression of sexual references/exposures (the Jackson incident and the use of 'obscene' language). In Canada, the CRTC rules include such things as the percentage of foreign cultural content, etc. Failure to abide by these rules means that stations/networks can lose their licenses. I think these types of rules are more or less universal among democratic countries in the allocation of monopoly rights to private companies. Now as I understand it, in the case of the denial of RCTV of a license renewal, it was because of the failure of the station to live up to minimum standards of balanced reporting and of skirting with support for illegal activity involving the overthrow of democratic government. Furthermore, the denial of renewal of the license did not involve suppression of dissent or denial of freedom of expression in that it allowed RCTV to continue broadcasting on cable, and that it opened up a new channel of expression which greatly broadened the flow of information and expression with its new community channel. How can anyone talk about a 'suppression of expression' when the move creates an open channel previously dominated by an exclusionary monopoly? David's view of 'freedom of expression' is so ludicrous that it would be laughable if it were not so sad. As is Milton's view of freedom as is his use of statistical fabrication to support his views. The point is, there is little or no connection between political liberalism and economic growth. This is a dead duck, a proven disconnect. Lets leave it in the compost heap where it belongs.
Paul P
