New Conservative Government In Honduras Moves Toward Criminalizing Internet Speech

250px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg170px-Coat_of_arms_of_Honduras.svgIn case you thought that the greatest threats to free speech in Latin America is coming from the leftist  Maduro regime, Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez is showing that such repressive policies can be found on either end of the ideological spectrum.  The Trump Administration supported Hernandez in his contested election despite widespread questions of election irregularities. Faced with various sites discussing these allegations, Hernandez’ government is pursuing a new and chilling law to criminalize any “hate campaigns” on the Internet.  This is one of our closest allies in Latin America and it has set itself on the course of criminalizing political speech.

 Lawmakers in Honduras are calling for fines of up to $43,000 against those running websites or social networks on which text encouraging “hate and discrimination” are posted.  That would be a full-scale attack on free speech and the free press, leaving to the government to determine what is “hateful” or “discriminatory.”  Given the focus on anti-Hernandez site, the prospects for human rights in Honduras is alarming.

31 thoughts on “New Conservative Government In Honduras Moves Toward Criminalizing Internet Speech”

  1. If we have to choose between “authoritarians,” I would choose Hernandez over Mel Zelaya any day. Communists have the one vote one time mentality. You get to vote for us one time. Once we get in, forgeddaboutit!!

  2. Other right wing governments are found in Hungary, maybe Poland but certainly in the Middle East.

    Not all right wing governments are bad; Morocco is doing fairly well, for example.

  3. If you go South of our border, i.e. the Mexican border, then you run into all sorts of dictatorships. We need to build a Wall. I agree with Trump except I think a better wall than he talks about.

  4. Turley is wrong again. No surprise there. And he and so many others haven’t the foggiest notion of what is really happening in politics today (or what has happened in history for that matter), as they take great pride in their ignorance.

    First, the “Trump Administration” did NOT support Hernandez. Trump supported free and fair elections. Period. However, the STATE DEPARTMENT expressed support for Hernandez. That is a big difference because the State Department is run by the DEEP STATE. Trump has, so far, not attempted to challenge the Deep State’s State Department operations, which is why, for example, Trump only expressed verbal support for the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but made no changes whatsoever in the State Department’s official position–which is, and has been, anti-Israel. So, you got that now? The State Department loves Hernandez, not Donald Trump.

    Second, there IS no Left or Right Wing, as the media today wants to imply that there is. There is ONLY Left wing. There is no discernable difference between Coke and Pepsi and there’s no discernable difference between Nazis and Communists. That’s why I invented the term “Isalmocommunazis” to describe the modern Left. They are ALL part of the same authoritarian, brutalitarian Leftist program. They share the same objectives and the same methods.

    Third, Hernandez was NEVER a “conservative,” nor can he be characterized as belonging to a “right wing.” The right and left wings are simply part of the same circle and have as much distinction as Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dee.

    A true conservative wants liberty and freedom and the free market system of economics, with government limited to ensuring a level playing field, the safety and security of the nation, and to provide for the necessary checks and balances to prevent individuals and their entities from exercising authoritarian power over other businesses and entities, including state and local governments.

    1. Some of what you ask for in the final, overly long, sentence is mutually contradictory. See what philosophers and economists have written.

      1. David Benson – Which philosophers? Which economists? There are a lot to choose from?

  5. President Hernandez is a classic authoritarian. He has labeled his more vocal critics as enemies of the people, a favorite tactic of budding dictators. The proposed legislation is a transparent attempt to make any opposition to the government a punishable offense. Honduran government troops have already killed dozens of ordinary people in response to post-election protests. The new legislation will enable mass arrests, particularly among activist Catholic clergy and human rights representatives. We’ve seen this movie before; dictators are not known for their imaginative thinking. And it is unlikely that the Trump administration will extend a welcoming hand to those seeking to escape political persecution. Honduras, after all, is one of the President’s “shithole” countries.

    1. Okay, but you cannot have two equal signs. Either one thing can equal another or it does not–unless, however, what you are really saying is that the “far left” is “more equal” than the “far right.” Although that last part is probably what you meant, there IS no “right wing,” as I’ve already explained above.

        1. You mean the Habsburgs? Well, I might ask them, but the House of Habsburg became extinct in the 18th century.

            1. Okay, thank you: you have proven my point. If you go to your link and actually read the contents of the description, you will learn that Karl von Habsburg is “an advocate for the Pan-European movement.” And if you drill down further, you will read that the Pan-European movement is today simply a wing of the European Union. And the EU is PURE Leftism. It fancies itself as a technocracy, leading the EU into a land of milk and honey. In reality it is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, incompetent, corrupt and leading the members of the EU in a white-knuckle ride into economic oblivion. That concludes today’s lesson.

              1. Just setting things up so that everyone will want him as the new Holy Roman Emperor.

  6. This is why we should never abdicate individual rights in favor of an all powerful Big Government.

    No matter who is in power, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

    No one would be able to resist the temptation to abuse authority. Give the government the power to criminalize speech, and freedom as you know it is over.

    This is why I was so frustrated with the media and the Left in their failure to check the rise of Obama’s uber presidency. It was their job to check him, as well as Hillary Clinton, but they didn’t. A dictator was Progress as long as he was theirs. If Hillary had won, the Left would have handed over as much power as the Senate gave to Supreme Chancellor Palpadine, otherwise known as Darth Sidius. Thank God someone took office who showed the Left the dangers in granting such powers. All of a sudden, Congress remembers it is a check and balance, and politicians are hastily trying to draw back their generous precedents. This is healthy, as I no more want Trump and Pence to be dictators than I wanted Obama or Hillary to be.

  7. The inherent issue for Americans is defence of the Constitution.

    The American Founders addressed foreign transgressions by providing Congress with the power to tax for

    “…the common Defence…”:

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts

    and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;…”

    The extant problem for post-Constitutional America is the well-nigh abrogation of the Constitution by liberal,

    globalist collectivists.

  8. “… such repressive policies can be found on either end of the ideological spectrum.”

    And maybe that’s a clue that the real problem is ideology, and that repressive policies are merely a symptom (one of many) of a failed way of thinking?????
    It’s mind-blowing how so many otherwise-reasonably-intelligent people having been hoodwinked into thinking in terms of ideology as if it’s the only way to think, instead of what it is, which is the stupidest way to think — almost not thinking at all, but more of a shortcut that obviates the need to think.

  9. Tell a mainstream conservative OR liberal that some country or event in the world is none of the United States business and they will look at you as if you came from Mars.

    “What, what do you mean??? It’s all our business, we are only trying to help, spread democracy, freedom, etc.”

  10. Since we are essentially talking about an unAmerican “Nanny-State” censoring free speech – did anyone notice Janet Jackson wasn’t invited back to the Super Bowl this year?

    Janet Jackson was fined thousands of dollars by a federal government agency because another person caused a “wardrobe malfunction”, which exposed her bare breast for about 1/10 of 1 second on national television. Even if you saw it live on TV, there was little to be offended by. Although also a fan of Justin Timberlake, he was invited back. There have been previous Super Bowl performers that were bare-chested for several minutes for the entire half-time show – they were men of course.

    Should the ACLU sue the FCC for both compensatory and punitive damages for Janet Jackson having her First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated by a government agency? Does the television network bear some culpability for not having delayed broadcasting safeguards?

    1. MLK – current reports show the tailor who made the costume is under a DNR. It appears it was a set-up.

      1. Paul C. Schulte:

        The U.S. Supreme Court never officially settled this issue of government censorship. The media industry made a deal to provide parental labeling like “PG” or “R” or “Mature Audiences…”. In other words the “censorship” was designed to be by the parents – not a government bureaucrat – which violates the First Amendment.

        It’s shocking to many civil libertarians that both Hollywood and the censoring government agency – FCC – allow vile graphic violence on television, similar to what a soldier in combat sees that suffers with PTSD, while a bare breast visible for 1/10 of 1 second earns a government fine.

        It’s ironic that there are fine art nude statues inside the U.S. Department of Justice (which John Ashcroft paid thousands of dollars to cover) and nude statues in front of the Library of Congress (across the street from the nations Capitol and U.S. Supreme Court). There is a famous conflict a few years ago between Facebook and the ACLU, where FB censored the ACLU FB Page for showing a nude statue in a town’s public park. Facebook got publicly humiliated when they tangled with the ACLU. Europe which is not terrorized by fine art nudity and shows less graphic violence on television, has on average less violent crime and fewer sex crimes as we do here in the United States.

        On Fourteenth Amendment grounds, can you have a law or government policy that only applies to women but not the same standard for men? If it was the tailor’s fault, why shouldn’t Janet Jackson be reimbursed by the FCC plus punitive damages?

  11. Just to be clear; international welfare payments to foreign entities should end if the United States does not get the election results we demand in those foreign countries. And how exactly is that different than what the Russians are accused of doing?

      1. yyy – I was. And I was saying it in the 60s about South Africa at a Model UN.

  12. You can thank Hillary/Obama for the coup against the FAIRLY elected president, Manuel Zelaya, for the installation of the corrupt president, Hernandez – who was declared the winner in a stolen election. He is just the kind of anti-democracy servant of the rich that our government always supports.

  13. put some little boxes at the top labeled hate speech, personal opinion, factual and require the last to be factual with sources, dates of publication, cites etc. finally one for the progressives marked Pure BS.

  14. I don’t understand what relevance this intra-Honduran policy should have on U.S. alliance? Maybe these countries’ policies are unsavory – even un-American – but are their internal politics really more important than this country’s own strategic interests? I don’t mind U.S. blood and treasure protecting free trade because this country benefits from that. But should we lose American lives and money to protect the supposed “rights” of citizens of other countries? I don’t think so.

Comments are closed.