Venezuela's gag draws no laughs

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Racy scenes are being edited out of soap operas, newscasters are weighing their words carefully and the jokes have largely faded from programs that once poked fun at Venezuela's government.

It's all because of a new law restricting violence and sexual content over the airwaves.

President Hugo Chavez, who signed the Law for Responsibility in Radio and Television last month, argues that the measures will protect children and make broadcasters accountable to citizens.

Some of Chavez's critics -- among them media executives -- call it the "Gag Law" and warn that together with a recently approved penal code the government has powerful new tools to punish media outlets or others who criticize the government.

Nevertheless, TV and radio managers are busy adapting their programs as the government phases in restrictions that could lead to heavy fines for violators or the revocation of broadcasting licenses.

"We are talking to the writers to explain what the law means and how they are going to have to adapt the drama to the new schedules and rules," said Maria Loscher, a legal adviser to the TV channel Venevision.

Soap operas are popular in Venezuela as in much of Latin America, but some traditional staples of the genre now are being largely set aside -- including explicit sexual scenes, kidnappings by armed thugs and bribery of public servants.

The law bans "vulgar" language, images of sex and "psychological" or physical violence from 7 a.m until 11 p.m. One clause prohibits "images or graphic descriptions that show real violence or its consequences."

Some rules established by the law have already gone into effect, such as a ban on "messages that show violence as a solution to human conflicts" and "subliminal" messages. Other more far-reaching rules are to be phased in by June.

Some media managers are reviewing programs with political satire or sex-related skits that they fear could be targeted by regulators.

Criminal charges

Under the new code, criminal sentences for slander -- referring to statements that impugn "the honor, the reputation, the respect" of a person -- were lengthened from a mere eight days to up to one year. There is no exception for public officials.

Chavez and his supporters say the changes are necessary to reign in media outlets that have run amok and that the new measures pose no threat to freedom of speech.

The president's supporters accuse four private TV channels of suppressing coverage of his return to power during a short-lived 2002 coup. Chavez refers to the four channels, which include Globovision and Venevision, as "the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse."

TV executives denied resorting to self-censorship, arguing that security threats and harassment by Chavez supporters prevented news teams from reporting on the street. Several of the channels broadcast cartoons and movies while loyalists in the military, joined by thousands of rowdy supporters, returned Chavez to power.

Miguel Torres, a 42-year-old street peddler, said Chavez "should been tougher with the private channels ... They're nothing but slaves to the opposition. And everything they broadcast is garbage."

Others stand up for the Venezuelan broadcast media, saying the new laws include attempts to control dissent.

"The president doesn't want people publicly criticizing him or his regime," said Marisol del Valle, a 45-year-old housewife.

The government, which currently is expanding the reach of the state-run media, is urging viewers and listeners to report violations of the new media law.

Information Minister Andres Izarra recently urged "all those Venezuelans who feel offended or insulted by the programming that some of the private media broadcast" to send written complaints to authorities.

Once an 11-member "Responsibility Directorate" dominated by the government further lays out procedures under the media law, authorities will be able to fine noncompliant media organizations or revoke their licenses.

But critics argue definitions in the media law are vague, which could lead to abuse.

"Different interpretations could end up with the rules applied in an unbalanced manner," Loscher said. "One person can interpret a rule one way and another can have a completely different understanding of what it means."