The Belmont Club on Supporters of Chavez

A number of British personalities, including journalist John Pilger wrote the Guardian to announce their support for Chavez's shutdown of opposition TV stations. "We believe that the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcasting licence of RCTV when it expires on May 27 ... is legitimate given that RCTV has used its access to the public airwaves to repeatedly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez."
[...]
All over the world, in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, Africa, Asia and even in Western Europe people are being forced by crisis to choose their sides. The century widely expected to contain no greater peril than the Y2K bug is already forcing people to discover what civilians in Iraq know already: that you can be left hanging in the middle like Jimmy carter. We are left with choices between evils without the leadership to create space for maneuver.

And from the comments:

...somewhere in one of Josephine Tey's detective novels - I believe it is The Daughter of Time - her protagonist, Detective Grant speculates on the mental processes of criminals. One thing he claims is that your burglar or whatever can reason very well from A to B, but not from B to C.

In other words, he knows that if he blows the safe door (A)he gets the money" (B)"but he can't or prefers not to reason to (C):"as soon as he tries to spend the money he'll be caught. Your common Kos frother can reason from (A)"if we get power" to (B) "we can shut Rush up", but not to (C)"then others will have the power to shut me up."

With others I think the reasoning is more complex. Some might simply reason that therefore power must never be reliquished at any cost. I think most liberals take refuge in legalistic hypocrisy; "The Fairness Doctrine censors nobody, in fact it gives everyone a fair chance" simply ignoring the real effects. Or some varient of "the public owns the airways, and therefore a legal right exists to enforce...blah, blah, blah."

Finally, of course, since by definition to be a liberal is to be the best, and indeed, only possible defender of freedom (never defined) anything done by liberals by definition advances freedom, even if that means not advancing freedom at all. Rather like "People's Democracies" were, by definition, democratic. This is why many liberals will point you at dictionary definitions of the word "liberal" as if that meant anything.