General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsanyone heard of Emilio Palacio of Ecuador?
Haven't I heard of a similar case like this recently?CURT ANDERSON 02/ 8/12 03:55 PM ET
MIAMI — A former Ecuadorean newspaper columnist who faces prison and millions of dollars in fines for his criticism of President Rafael Correa requested asylum Wednesday in the U.S., claiming he is the victim of persecution aimed at stifling free expression.
Emilio Palacio, 58, said in an asylum application that a criminal libel judgment against him in his homeland shows he "is being severely punished in Ecuador for expressing legitimate opinions and subjective interpretations of factual events."
A four-hour, closed-door hearing was held Wednesday in Miami before U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services officials regarding his request but a decision isn't likely for weeks or possibly months, said Palacio's attorney Sandra Grossman. Palacio said he was optimistic about the outcome.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/emilio-palacio-ecuador-journalist-asylum_n_1262472.html
(even the Huff Post can get it's facts wrong-he was convicted for libel, not criticism)
shouldn't he go back and face his punishment like a man ?. After all, he is a convicted criminal.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
tsuki
(11,994 posts)the newspaper and Junkyard Dog Journalist Palacio.
It was rather like the Sandra Fluke-Limbaugh incident where Limbaugh smeared and jeered Fluke by making up testimony she did not give and attacking her character.
Junkyard Dog Journalists need to be sued. Freedom of the Press is not the freedom to slander and libel.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The charge wasn't libel, it was "defaming a public official". And carried a three year prison sentence. And under the law in the US at least public figures can't sur for libel or slander without proving actual malice on the part of the publisher or writer.
tama
(9,137 posts)The slander was calling Correa a murderer during the coup attempt when police forces on the payroll of US embassy went to strike because Correa wanted to stop the practice of US embassy controlling Ecuadorian police and Ecuadorian army came to rescue their president from the police forces on foreign payroll. And as said, the three editors of the pro-coup, bankster owned media were found guilty as charged and then pardoned by the president.
tsuki
(11,994 posts)than we do. You are not allowed to make up your own facts and then propagandize the public with false information like they do here. And if you make up your own facts, that is malice.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Journalists being arrested and imprisoned for "defaming the president" does not constitute "free media".
Swagman
(1,934 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Nor is it a criminal offence.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Making his living in the public eye?
When was the last time the POTUS sued Rush for libel? This shoud be your free clue to how free the Ecuadorian press is.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)the laws of the rest of the world.
Libel laws similar to Ecuador's are in place in most of the world. There are states in Australia that still have criminal libel penalties.
UK, New Zealand, Australian , German politicians are endlessly suing publications for libel and winning big bucks in damages although unlike the Ecuadorean PM, I have never heard one issue a pardon against the sentence as he has done.
And as he was accused of being a dictator and murderer by the journalist he had every right to sue and I would be surprised if a US politician put up with such defamation.
He sued in a court of law where a jury and judge decide the penalties.
But you go and clutch every little straw you can.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so please yourself
lawsuits for libel on public officials is a tool to control the press
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and indeed this makes Assange seeking asylum in Ecuador kind of hilarious considering Ecuador's demonstrated record on press freedom. Assange is not facing trial on anything to do with Wikileaks and its publication of classified material; he is wanted on charges of rape. If Assange sought asylum on the basis of impending extradition to the USA, to face charges in an American court for publishing classified material, then I would support the decision of Ecuador to grant asylum in his case. Particularly because Assange is not an American citizen, and because Wikileaks' servers, so far as I am aware, have never been located in the US; the idea that the US can prosecute a foreign national for actions not committed on US soil is frankly terrifying. But that is not what we are talking about, so your attempting to draw any equivalency here is absurd.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)Julian Assange is not "wanted on charges of rape" and if you cannot get such a simple yet very important fact straight how can any of your post be taken seriously ?.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)He hasn't been formally charged because Swedish law doesn't allow formal charges unless the accused is on Swedish soil. This is also why Sweden has declined any offers to question Assange in the UK; Swedish law says it has to happen there. I have my facts straight, thanks; how can you be taken seriously when you demonstrate an apparent ignorance of the legal processes involved here?
Swagman
(1,934 posts)you do not have facts although you appear to have knowledge that the British courts never had or Assange;s lawyers never had access to.
I have never in all my years on DU read such vitriol and fabrications directed at a person
Thank God for the ignore button. It is a godsend.
..and go and read Naomi Wolf's take on it..
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)1) there is indication of lack of consent. (Consent once given may be revoked; it isn't permanent licence.) If he penetrated one of these women while she was asleep? She was in no case in a position to consent, anyway; that's definitely rape.
2) through 8) inclusive: Sweden is not the US. Police and legal procedures are not those one finds in the US. Arguing "well they don't do it like we would in America!" is not really an argument.
tsuki
(11,994 posts)narrative. On every thread that I have read you push the "he is wanted on charges of rape". Not true. He is wanted for questioning on charges of sexual misconduct.
hack89
(39,171 posts)From Human Rights Watch
Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president. In September 2011 the Constitutional Court agreed to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions submitted by Fundamedios, an Ecuadorian press freedom advocacy group. A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who defame public authorities.
Under the existing code, journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense. According to Fundamedios, by October 2011 five journalists had been sentenced to prison terms for defamation since 2008, and 18 journalists, media directors, and owners of media outlets faced similar charges.
President Correa frequently rebukes journalists and media that criticize him and has personally taken journalists to court for allegedly defaming him. In July 2011 a judge in Guayas province sentenced Emilio Palacio, who headed the opinion section of the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, and three members of the newspaper’s board of directors, to three years in prison and ordered them to pay US$40 million in damages to the president for an article the judge considered defamatory. In an opinion piece Palacios had referred to Correa as a “dictator” and accused him of ordering his forces to fire on a hospital, which was “full of civilians and innocent people,” during the September 2010 police revolt.
In September 2011 a three-person appeals court confirmed the prison sentence and the fine by majority vote. Correa said in a press conference that he would consider a pardon if the newspaper confessed that it had lied, apologized to the Ecuadorian people, and promised to be more “serious, professional and ethical” in the future.
In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as cadenas. According to an independent media observation group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics.
Legislation to regulate broadcasting and print media has been under congressional debate since 2009. In the May 2011 referendum voters supported, by a small majority, a proposal to create an official council to regulate the content of television, radio, and print media. Proposals by six ruling party legislators under discussion in the National Assembly in July 2011 would grant broad powers to this council, allowing it to punish media that disseminate “information of public relevance that harms human rights, reputation, people’s good name, and the public security of the state,” terms so vague that they could easily lead to sanctions against critical outlets.
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador
There are some that argue that they support Assange merely to burnish their very tarnished civil rights image. If Assange was an Ecuadorian journalist and "leaked" anything about Ecuador, he would be rotting in jail.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and stealing their assets.
But I might be wrong.
Eucador may have a government backed media, the USA has Fox.
Of course the point of my post was to show the USA varies very little from Eucador in the matter of asylum.
I haven't mention Assange.
hack89
(39,171 posts)we talk about Ecuador all the time. 
Swagman
(1,934 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)He was sentenced to three years in prison for criticizing the president:
The column, which referred to Correa as "the Dictator," raised questions about a September 2010 rescue of the president by an army unit during a violent police revolt. Correa responded with a libel suit, which was strongly condemned by international human rights and free speech groups as part of a campaign by Correa to silence legitimate expression and intimidate opposition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/emilio-palacio-ecuador-journalist-asylum_n_1262472.html
How long do you think Correa would have tried to put Palacio away for if he "leaked" Ecuadorian government documents like Assange?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)prepared for his trial in miami.
hack89
(39,171 posts)looks like the president went a little too far.
Do you think that Palacio should have been convicted in the first place? Why does a country need such laws? Would you support such laws in America?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president. In September 2011 the Constitutional Court agreed to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions submitted by Fundamedios, an Ecuadorian press freedom advocacy group. A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who defame public authorities.
Under the existing code, journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense. According to Fundamedios, by October 2011 five journalists had been sentenced to prison terms for defamation since 2008, and 18 journalists, media directors, and owners of media outlets faced similar charges.
President Correa frequently rebukes journalists and media that criticize him and has personally taken journalists to court for allegedly defaming him. In July 2011 a judge in Guayas province sentenced Emilio Palacio, who headed the opinion section of the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, and three members of the newspaper’s board of directors, to three years in prison and ordered them to pay US$40 million in damages to the president for an article the judge considered defamatory. In an opinion piece Palacios had referred to Correa as a “dictator” and accused him of ordering his forces to fire on a hospital, which was “full of civilians and innocent people,” during the September 2010 police revolt.
In September 2011 a three-person appeals court confirmed the prison sentence and the fine by majority vote. Correa said in a press conference that he would consider a pardon if the newspaper confessed that it had lied, apologized to the Ecuadorian people, and promised to be more “serious, professional and ethical” in the future.
In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as cadenas. According to an independent media observation group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics.
Legislation to regulate broadcasting and print media has been under congressional debate since 2009. In the May 2011 referendum voters supported, by a small majority, a proposal to create an official council to regulate the content of television, radio, and print media. Proposals by six ruling party legislators under discussion in the National Assembly in July 2011 would grant broad powers to this council, allowing it to punish media that disseminate “information of public relevance that harms human rights, reputation, people’s good name, and the public security of the state,” terms so vague that they could easily lead to sanctions against critical outlets.
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)But lets talk in the general - is there a place in an open and transparent democracy for laws like this? Would you want to have similar laws in America?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)impartial observer, and it is *not* an impartial observer. For example:
But Human Rights Watch and, apparently, other human rights groups signed off on (extraordinary) renditions in talks with the Obama administration, saying publicly that there is "a legitimate place" for the practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
Apparently Correra himself has proposed eliminating "desacato" (contempt):
http://m.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/correa-propondr-al-congreso-eliminar-delito-de-desacato-en-ecuador/10007224
also, ecuador isn't the only place with desacato laws -- apparently some of our allies (e.g. spain, costa rica) do as well.
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=310&lID=1
Thus I place little trust in HRW's account & am not interested in debating it. I don't know the meaning of the law, whether it still exists or whether prosecutions are actually done under it. What I know is that Palacio was not prosecuted under this law.
I doubt you know anything about it either.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)a crime.
