NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, everyone. This is my first attempt at writing a UN resolution and I would appreciate it if everyone could read it over and give it fair consideration. Although the subject is humor, I am quite serious about it, and I hope to see it passed.

Here is the proposal in its entirety:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

Whereas all the enlightened nations of the world recognize that sentient beings possess certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And whereas these same nations delineate many of these rights and recognize that pre-eminent among them is the freedom of speech and expression.

And whereas humor is not merely a pathway toward increased happiness, but can also be used to make important points more gently and succinctly than would otherwise be possible,

Therefore let it be resolved that the member states of the United Nations recognize the right to humor as a fundamental right of sentient beings.

Let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.

And let it be further resolved that rectum? Damn near killed ‘em!

Okay, actually that last bit isn't really in there, but what good is a proposal
on humor without humor?

I take it you think there is a global problem oh humorlessness? Can you give some examples (other than naming certain mods)?

A nation was recently ejected from the UN for being "silly".

But rather than focus on something that will likely lead to another mod/anti-mod flamefest, let's just try to consider the merits of the proposal at hand.

Given the free-form nature of the game, I feel that any behavior which is otherwise legal and does not infringe on the rights of others to play the game in a manner in which they enjoy should not be restricted. This obviously should not include things like spamming, even if they are done in a humorous way.

However, we should not discourage aspects of game play that keep the game vibrant and fun for some players, as long as such behavior does not infringe on the rights of others to enjoy the game. The continued participation of the widest variety of (legal) players is an asset to the game.

I take it you think there is a global problem oh humorlessness? Can you give some examples (other than naming certain mods)?

I guess you're too young to remember how the Smothers Brothers got taken off the air for criticizing the Nixon Administration. Bill Maher's departure from ABC is a more recent example.

Anyhow, imagine making a Castro joke in Cuba today and ask yourself how many nations in nation states have a similar mind set. Freedom of speech is a paper tiger if you have no liberty to present your argument in an effective and memorable way.

well I am Happy to say I am the first to endorse it, and I du;;y support rights such as this, I am disapointed that it is a right that has to be legislated, rather than be one we all naturlaly assume someone has the right too,

an example, remember the recent Joke about the Hunter


E 911 recieves a frantic call from a hunter,
Hunter, My friend and I were hunting and he fell and I think he is dead.
Operator, well I can probably help you, but you have to make sure he is dead,
Hunte, Ok, *silence* *BANG!!
Hunter, all right, now what?


some woman with no sense of humor tried to claim it was true and that guns and hunting should be outlawed,
my nephew told it at school and got suspended for three days for "making threats"
so yes there are serious lacks of Humor out there, and it is especially bothersome considering this is a Game, just my $2.15.

Given the free-form nature of the game, I feel that any behavior which is otherwise legal and does not infringe on the rights of others to play the game in a manner in which they enjoy should not be restricted. This obviously should not include things like spamming, even if they are done in a humorous way.

However, we should not discourage aspects of game play that keep the game vibrant and fun for some players, as long as such behavior does not infringe on the rights of others to enjoy the game. The continued participation of the widest variety of (legal) players is an asset to the game.

Great post! As usual, I find myself in complete agreement with Beachcomber.

Some people would argue that this "humor" "is contrary to the accepted moral standards," i.e. the UN itself.

Many believe that humor and politics don't go together.

Some people would argue that this "humor" "is contrary to the accepted moral standards," i.e. the UN itself.

Many believe that humor and politics don't go together.

And those people would then not vote for such a resolution. That is the principle of the UN, that people disagree on what the UN can justify or should have to consider. I will leave RL out of it, but when you think about it-- don't. Consider recent and even current issues in the UN, and how there disagreeances with what UN members should be presented with.

I think offensive UN proposals are clear, and should be axed. But if it is something in the form of humor, I think that might work with a "game" about politics. Oh, if only we could find such a game.... Oh, wait. I guess this might be such an appropriate place.

As well, I think there was a time it might make sense for this. We were being overrun with UN Proposals. When I used to be more UN active, it was normal to have to go through 30 or more pages of proposals-- I am glad the offensive or RL proposlas are being taken out. I do think this is the perfect place for humor, as long as it is within bounds of course.

Preach brother preach :o

Some people would argue that this "humor" "is contrary to the accepted moral standards," i.e. the UN itself.

Many believe that humor and politics don't go together.

And so, there should be no such thing as political cartoons, Rush Limbaugh and Al Frankin should be censored and we should ban things like Doonsbury and Boondocks from the funny pages.

If you've never heard Ronald Reagan give an after dinner speech, the man could be hysterical.

I maintain that humor can be a valid way to make a point.

Aegonia is usually very skeptical and tough to win over on UN resolutions, and more so on resolutions that have a stronger effect. Although this proposal is intriguing, the verbose nature of the resolution seems to be more of an attempt to cover for lack of substance than a display of intelligence. We agree with the idea behind the proposal, but would be forced to take a stance against it with an unnecessarily "strong" effect. "Significant" seems to be sufficient, and a less wordy proposal could help win over the slower-witted members of the UN. You may wish to reconsider the first two lines as they are not necessary to the resolution as a whole and not all countries will agree. A focused point keeps people from voting down the entire resolution just because they disagreed with one small part.

Thank you for the preliminary opportunity to debate the issue.

Your proposal would bring significant change and Im not sure that it would be widely accepted.

All the issues are funny. Humor was always a part of this game and that is why I decided to play.

We agree with the idea behind the proposal, but would be forced to take a stance against it with an unnecessarily "strong" effect. "Significant" seems to be sufficient,

I can't agree with you here. As a civil libertarian I take my rights very seriously (even when it's the right to humor) and I think that declaring that something is a fundamental and inviolable human right has a strong effect.

You may wish to reconsider the first two lines as they are not necessary to the resolution as a whole and not all countries will agree. A focused point keeps people from voting down the entire resolution just because they disagreed with one small part.

Well, I took "description" to be part justification and part enactment. A "whereas" is clearly an argument put forward to explain why a resolution is necessary. The only legally binding portion are the "resolved"s. Anyone confusing the two is thinking that the resolution is a good idea, but they're not going to vote for it because they think one of the arguments I made is specious. That sound like one of those "slower-witted members of the UN" that you make reference to.

There is no reason for this bill; we already have freedom of humor - why else do you think you were allowed to propose this?

I think this is actually a good idea... Dear god hepl me.. Anyway, HPEH supports the resolution and will ask his delegate to endorse it...


Also we denounce the evil acts of hte Humorless agency of Caras Galadon as they burn several books of humor in front of hte UN building.


OOC: With the sarcasm there I actually do support the proposal...

well this issue is kinda pertinant, you see, if you dont liekhumor it is your right to not read it if it is there, however you dont have the right to tell me I cannot have humor.

Aegonia is usually very skeptical and tough to win over on UN resolutions, and more so on resolutions that have a stronger effect. Although this proposal is intriguing, the verbose nature of the resolution seems to be more of an attempt to cover for lack of substance than a display of intelligence. We agree with the idea behind the proposal, but would be forced to take a stance against it with an unnecessarily "strong" effect. "Significant" seems to be sufficient, and a less wordy proposal could help win over the slower-witted members of the UN. You may wish to reconsider the first two lines as they are not necessary to the resolution as a whole and not all countries will agree. A focused point keeps people from voting down the entire resolution just because they disagreed with one small part.

Thank you for the preliminary opportunity to debate the issue.

Thank you for being so open to debate. I am glad, personally that you find a level of interest in the idea of the proposal. I am afraid that you are saying that you agree with the proposal, bud don’t like the wording. While I agree to a distance with you in that regard, shouldn’t language be the last reason to pas up a proposal? The content, it seems to me, is the real thing of importance. If you feel that it is important to allow humor in a game such as this, I implore you to vote for the pending resolution. When it comes to the impact and the verbiage, if it were to pass as a Un Resolution it would be up to you and your people to see how it translates into general law. This seems to simply allow the possibility of humor when evaluation the needs of your region and the world in general.

Your proposal would bring significant change and Im not sure that it would be widely accepted.

I doubt the change would be significant, since this has been allowed for a long time, until recently perhaps. Also, as to the wideness of it’s acceptance, being 40 til going to all UN members, I ask not now that you vote the proposal into law. I ask now you open it up for the world to vote on. It has signifigant support now, it simply a matter of interested parties allowing the less active DEL a vote on the proposal.

All the issues are funny. Humor was always a part of this game and that is why I decided to play.

Exactly and the same measure of wit should be allowed in proposals.

There is no reason for this bill; we already have freedom of humor - why else do you think you were allowed to propose this?

You do not have the freedom of humor. There were some recent incidents with this, thus the proposal was created. If you value what you consider to be given a “norm” or a given, you will vote for the re-instatement of what has recently been taken away from you.



I think this is actually a good idea... Dear god hepl me.. Anyway, HPEH supports the resolution and will ask his delegate to endorse it...


Also we denounce the evil acts of hte Humorless agency of Caras Galadon as they burn several books of humor in front of hte UN building.


OOC: With the sarcasm there I actually do support the proposal...

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the:

Thanks Caras.

I have some reserves ofer the wording of the resolution in general, but since my legal English is not good enough, I'll not try to rephrase it.

But I also do have a problem concerning the merrits of the resolution:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

...

Therefore let it be resolved ...

Let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.
...

As a matter of fact, those exceptions encompass virtually all the excuses invoked for the violations of the right to humor. For instance, all the examples of violent anti-humorism put forward by Orion Nebula or 1 Infinite Loop are fully covered by these exceptions - community standards and hurting the individual.

The right to humor is in fact part of the right to free speech and should only have the restraints acceptable for free speech: humorous expression should be free of lies, insults, and unacceptable discriminations not related to the issue being duscussed (such as those based on gender, hair color, religion, race, handicap, etc.). The only remedy against such excesses should be the relief for damages incurred, obtained through a lawsuit.

As a matter of fact, those exceptions encompass virtually all the excuses invoked for the violations of the right to humor. For instance, all the examples of violent anti-humorism put forward by Orion Nebula or 1 Infinite Loop are fully covered by these exceptions - community standards and hurting the individual.

The right to humor is in fact part of the right to free speech and should only have the restraints acceptable for free speech: humorous expression should be free of lies, insults, and unacceptable discriminations not related to the issue being duscussed (such as those based on gender, hair color, religion, race, handicap, etc.). The only remedy against such excesses should be the relief for damages incurred, obtained through a lawsuit.

As I am sure you know, this is not a free site in the terms of “free speech.” It is Max’s site, and Max does not allow all things to be on the page. I would simply like to petition the UN to stand for the principles of humor. I agree with some of your language reservations, though this is the best I have seen yet to broach the issue.

As to the issue that Orio and Loop touched on, I think it is actually important to have limitations. One should not be permitted to make jokes on a private forum like this at the expense at others. They should not be allowed to belittle groups they disagree with. They should be allowed to be a general jerk at the expensise of another, only to say “It’s just a joke.” In other words, the rules now on flaming, should still apply. And I think in a public forum it makes sense.

I am not suggesting the same should be in a public world, in my home, or around me in general. Put such limitations seem fine with me on the game, and do not take away from the appeal to simply let laugh rule.

I just noticed that the Freedom of Humor Act has made quorum and is in queue to come up for a vote. I wanted to thank everyone for their support thus far and hope you will continue to support this resolution when it comes up for a vote.

Also, I've noted the concerns that many of you have and I think that, at the very least we should look at this as a positive first step. After (if) this resolution passes, if any of you would like to make a proposal strengthening the language here, you will have my support.

As a matter of fact, those exceptions encompass virtually all the excuses invoked for the violations of the right to humor. For instance, all the examples of violent anti-humorism put forward by Orion Nebula or 1 Infinite Loop are fully covered by these exceptions - community standards and hurting the individual.

The right to humor is in fact part of the right to free speech and should only have the restraints acceptable for free speech: humorous expression should be free of lies, insults, and unacceptable discriminations not related to the issue being duscussed (such as those based on gender, hair color, religion, race, handicap, etc.). The only remedy against such excesses should be the relief for damages incurred, obtained through a lawsuit.

To respond to Danubians, you should make note of the qualifiers unduly and particular. It's probably impossible to have freedom of humor without someone somewhere being made uncomfortable. Satirizing someone’s political beliefs might be considered hurtful by those whose beliefs are being satirized, but if it's done to make a point or to bring that person's or group's shortcomings into stark relief I would not classify it as "unduly" hurtful. Friendly kidding should be allowed but humor that's intended only to wound should not be protected.

To put it another way, when Rush Limbaugh makes a joke regarding Bill Clinton's politics it should be allowed. When he called Chelsea Clinton the "White House dog" that was clearly over the line. It was mean and sophomoric, it made no point and worst of all it wasn't funny.

I hope that clarifies a few things.

I think this is actually a good idea... Dear god help me.. Anyway, HPEH supports the resolution and will ask his delegate to endorse it...


Also we denounce the evil acts of hte Humorless agency of Caras Galadon as they burn several books of humor in front of the UN building.


OOC: With the sarcasm there I actually do support the proposal...

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the:

Thanks Caras.

Edit: I edited my spelling...

Now, I'm not sure what I did but you're very welcome.

Also, as has been said I think there is a line between humor and bad taste.Doonsbury is funny, Rish Limbaugh is not One has to take things in context. Let's use an example, it's funny for your best friend to make jokes about your sexuality but if I walked uop to you at random and do it it's insulting and not funny. ((Just use the example, I could care less what your sexuality is... I was drawing a blank))... Anyway what's the difference between the two? Simply what was meant by it, your friend was joking around and hopefully wasn't being serious. I would hve been being malicous and intended it to be at your expense... Grant that then requires interpretation of what is and is not meant to be malicous. Grant also that to someone the humor probably is not going to be funny. Let's example again:

Why did a woman have three children named Curly, Joe, and Bob?

She didn't want no moe.

I don't know if you found that funny or not but I imagine it probably offended everyone on this sight that speak ebonics... Caught my point yet?

~HPEH James the Sorta-Elven
Premeir of Caras Galadon

Can I get a link to this proposal?

Can I get a link to this proposal?

It's currently on page 2 of the UN's list of proposals. Go to the UN page, click on list proposals, then click on page 2.

By the time you get this, it may have moved up to the first page.

So, there are few who have voiced oposition to this proposal. If people weren't so apathatic, it would mean that the majority may be for the proposal.

All I get from is humor is good.

We should make a law that says humor is good.

So, do all who voted this in que plan on voting for this when it is presented to the UN as a whole?

My point (of view) is that while the scope of humour should be limited, its limits should be more strictly defined.

As it is, the resolution provides no protection against abusive restrictions, as long as they are argued in terms of community standards and harm to the individual (and historically, this has almost always been the case).

What other sort of limitiations would you want... again, it does allow comminuty standards to be held up against offensive attempts at humor.

qp
Well, I think it's funny.
qp

Let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.


Accepted moral standards? any society (and of course any Nation/Region) that is even a little multi-cultural as most modern societies are does not know what are it's accepted moral standards! The only nation that can have an accepted moral standard is one ruled by a totalitarian govenment where the state dictates "accepted standards"!

This confusing resolution will only bring about discussions about "accepted moral standards" whithin communities leading to absolute freedom to execute anything protected by the label "Humor"

This goes without mentioning what is or isnt unduly hurtful to an individual or group. (Who dictates this? the individual/group or someone else? if so who else?)

This resolution, that is soon to come up for voting, is completely unecessary for it not only is vague but such a matter as this falls intirely under any freedom of speech act or resolution!

Let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.


Accepted moral standards? any society (and of course any Nation/Region) that is even a little multi-cultural as most modern societies are does not know what are it's accepted moral standards! The only nation that can have an accepted moral standard is one ruled by a totalitarian govenment where the state dictates "accepted standards"!

This confusing resolution will only bring about discussions about "accepted moral standards" whithin communities leading to absolute freedom to execute anything protected by the label "Humor"

This goes without mentioning what is or isnt unduly hurtful to an individual or group. (Who dictates this? the individual/group or someone else? if so who else?)

This resolution, that is soon to come up for voting, is completely unecessary for it not only is vague but such a matter as this falls intirely under any freedom of speech act or resolution!

I fear you may be arguing to argue. I am not sure, so feel free to correct me. But if you don't want language open enough to allow each region to set their own standards, do you want something decisive and declatrtive. You want another to come up with language to limit your ability to run your region as you wish? Probably not.

So if you don't want overly restritive language, or open language for you to choose standards for youtrself, it would seem you just want to be contrary.

If you think there is a solution that I did nmot mention, what is it. What sort of wording would you agree with?

Question: Is freedom of humor not just a subset of the freedom of speech already allowed to all of my citizens? Or is this just a special addendum for physical comedy?

;)

Ha.

Sorry, But, Who needs a resolution about it?

I just laugh at you all ;-)

- As always, respecting interllectually stimulating ideas created by well meaning and correct (Of coarse based on individual perception) individuals, may you all have the right to laugh out loud at me, you and all.

God bless and goodnight.

- A representative of Komokom.

I fear you may be arguing to argue. I am not sure, so feel free to correct me.

i'm not arguing to argue. What i mean to say is that.

1- this legislation is inconsequential. All cases mentioned of freedom of humour fall under freedom of speech acts. (point 2 of The Universal Bill of Rights, implemented by the UN on Fri Aug 8 2003 )

2- Using "accepted moral standards" as a measure of what is or isnt protected by a freedom of humour is like passing a bill saying a meter is equal to 30 units without defining the units... Allow me to examplify:

a) You mention that the bill allows communities to define their own standards of "accepted moral", therefore their doesnt have to be a consense between all nations. But what about whithin a nation? With today's multi-cultural nations their is no ONE definition of accepted moral standards. Not even within my own family their is a concense about what is accepted humour and what isnt!

b) The main problem about the definition of "accepted moral standards" is that like i said above their are not easily defined. Quite the contrary! Who sets these standards within a nation? Many problems arrise from this... Do you set the standards as a ruler? (totalitarianism) Do the majority? (oppressive majority) do you give that power to judges? (police state)

c) what if i do some humour that i and a small group of people find moral acceptable, but a large ruling group dont find it moral acceptable? Do they have the right to punish me or stop me from doing more humour? (an example of why this legislation isnt needed: why dont they just turn away and dont listen to my humour?)


The problem of wording means that a law will be passed that will either bring more oppression and less freedoms giving the power of deciding moral freedoms to the ruler/s. That or this law will simply lose itself whithin any community, large or small, and whithin a discussion of what is morally accepted.

Summurising: I believe this bill is inconsequential and unnecessary.
not only is it based of weak wording such that it cannot acheive any practical solution and can easily be perversed, but anything it says is completely protected by the point 2 of the Universal Bill of Rights.

Question: Is freedom of humor not just a subset of the freedom of speech already allowed to all of my citizens? Or is this just a special addendum for physical comedy?

;)

Addendum I guess. I know there has been an issue or two with humor not being protected.



I fear you may be arguing to argue. I am not sure, so feel free to correct me.

i'm not arguing to argue. What i mean to say is that.


Thanks for responding


1- this legislation is inconsequential. All cases mentioned of freedom of humour fall under freedom of speech acts. (point 2 of The Universal Bill of Rights, implemented by the UN on Fri Aug 8 2003 )

Speech was deigned a right, but humor was not specified. In a little bit later, you make the argument that you can’t just have things like “community standards” assumed, it is too large of an assumption, and not everyone will agree with this. Well, same thing here. How can it just be assumed that nations will agree with you that humor falls under speech? There have, in fact, been issues with this. But beyond what I am aware of, it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that all parties agree in the legality of humor. There is no legal designation to this being allowed, thus the resolution.


2- Using "accepted moral standards" as a measure of what is or isnt protected by a freedom of humour is like passing a bill saying a meter is equal to 30 units without defining the units... Allow me to examplify:

Nations are currently allow to fit UN Resolutions into their community. This is not so different as you suggest


3- You mention that the bill allows communities to define their own standards of "accepted moral", therefore their doesnt have to be a consense between all nations. But what about whithin a nation? With today's multi-cultural nations their is no ONE definition of accepted moral standards. Not even within my own family their is a concense about what is accepted humour and what isnt!

Exactly, there is on standard definition across the board of what humor is. We agree. Where we disagree is what that means. I believe it means that it would be impossible to say to the entire world they must find Knock Jokes funny, they must find all Elephant jokes against moral standards, and that clowns are funny. Quite frankly you can’t make that sort of a decree to all other nations. We agree.

So why are you suggesting this resolution would only be valid if told each nation what was funny and what they had to find funny? As long as the humor fits with all other global UN laws, it is good to allow this discretion in the language.


Thanks, and I hope you respond to this directly if you disagree. If you disagree, I ask you again what sort of wording would you consider fair to other nations—how do you think would be best to give demands to other nations as to what is humor and what is not?

As this is an International *Game* (although some people seem to take it far to seriously) then I think that the creators of NS have got it about right. You do not know who is reading posts on your regional messageboard, age,sex,religion,colour etc So it does take some of the humour away but at the same time makes the game more enjoyable in that, you can have fun without the usual derogatory comments that pass for humour to certain persons in RL.

I do not see any reason for not spamming a friend,s region however and have and will continue to do so, They spam my region back, we only do silly spamming however as we realise others (and I am not on about the mods here) may come across one of our regions by chance.

So as far as I am concerned the mods are doing a good job. Tough if you dont like their decisions some time. I know I dont but what the f****
:D

Thanks, and I hope you respond to this directly if you disagree. If you disagree, I ask you again what sort of wording would you consider fair to other nations—how do you think would be best to give demands to other nations as to what is humor and what is not?

I'm sorry but i was quite confused by your post.

1- How can humour not fall under free speech?

2- Why pass a resolution that like you say advances nothing since the decision ends up falling to the nation anyway? I dont see the point of passing a resolution that says the decision is up to the individual nation.

All that will happen is that a resoultion will be made that doesnt resolute anything.

(on another note is the possibility of this act being a possible weapon of further opression. If, like the proposal says, humour that goes against moral standards shouldnt be allowed, then i fear that an opressive government can easily use this as a 'disguised' reason to limit free speech. All it has to do is state something as an "attempt" at humour, and that the so called "attempt" goes against moral standards. )

Should it be felt absolutely neccesary to pass a resolution on humour, i believe it would be better not to base a decision of allowed/not allowed humour on purely moral values, but should oneself feel ofended one has to prove moral damage ,by the stated humour, before a trial of equal peers.

Dont just pass resoultions for the passing of one. Let them make sense from beggining to end...

So as far as I am concerned the mods are doing a good job. Tough if you dont like their decisions some time. I know I dont but what the f****
:D

I think you want the General Forum? This is a forum about UN RES up to vote.




1- How can humour not fall under free speech?

2- Why pass a resolution that like you say advances nothing since the decision ends up falling to the nation anyway? I dont see the point of passing a resolution that says the decision is up to the individual nation.


The idea that Speech is free, is a phrasing which seems ill founded in formulaic logical constructs. Free of what? Censorship? Do you know of any state or country where absolute speech is free, in which one is allowed to say anything to anyone? How many nations/regions do you know of, is it legal to say something as vile as “I want to kill you” to it’s leader. None. There is no free speech really (nor really, should there be). In fact, speech is only as free as the moral standards of the community. If you need further examples of this, look around. I think you will find a few “free speech” nations in RL which use censorship, to degrees.

So, you throw around free speech, something which is based on moral standards, yet say there need be no law for humor because that is based on community standards?

So, you throw around free speech, something which is based on moral standards, yet say there need be no law for humor because that is based on community standards?

So if free speech itself is driven by moral standards, why repeat the issue? if we already have

"all free speech is protected unless it goes against the community standards"

why do we need

"all forms of humour is protected, unless it goes against communtity standards"

if humour is just a form of speech? (if you disagree then please give me an example that of course doesnt include physical humour, which is obviously protected by a coutries law on hitting someone else.)

So if free speech itself is driven by moral standards, why repeat the issue? if we already have

"all free speech is protected unless it goes against the community standards"

why do we need

"all forms of humour is protected, unless it goes against communtity standards"

if humour is just a form of speech? (if you disagree then please give me an example that of course doesnt include physical humour, which is obviously protected by a coutries law on hitting someone else.)

Hear, hear! You've made an excellent point Yous.

Ackbar101, does not humor comprise of spoken words? And, does not spoken words comprise speech? Thus, isn't humor a subset of speech? (Unless you're talking about physical humor, the answer to this question is quite obvious).

Whereas, freedom of speech and of expression are covered by the Universal Human Rights Act, humor consequently is also legally protected for the citizens of our great nations. Yous has pointed out the obvious. The Freedom of Humor resolution is PAINFULLY redundant. The only worthwhile purpose it serves is to moderate flaming, etc. within these forums. And, I do not believe that is the purpose of NationStates' UN (but I could be mistaken).

I thought the point of NationStates and of "Jennifer Government" was to stimulate political thought and political awareness. From the evidence of the majority of (the game's) UN proposals this point apparently is lost on many people. Again, I could be mistaken, and if so someone please let me know, but if I'm correct then it's a complete shame that "real life" UN proposals get shafted.

There does exist situational humor as well as spoken humor, which is at the foundation of why this resolution is rife with unintended consequences. It is funny when people fall down. When they're walloped in the groin with a football. When they're smacked in the face by pie.

By the wording of this resolution, a community may legalize gang rape by decaring it to be funny.

What does it mean when it says acceptable by moral standards? I understand the offensive to others part, but what about the other?

By the wording of this resolution, a community may legalize gang rape by decaring it to be funny.

The only thing that's funny about that is your convoluted logic. Do you seriously think that there's a nation on earth that doesn't find gang rape to be "contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community" or "unduly hurtful to a particular individual?" If there is, that nation's not going to look to this resolution to rationalize their psychotic behavior.


What does it mean when it says acceptable by moral standards?

It means that each nation should decide what is acceptable and unacceptable according to their own particular culture.

I thought the point of NationStates and of "Jennifer Government" was to stimulate political thought and political awareness. From the evidence of the majority of (the game's) UN proposals this point apparently is lost on many people. Again, I could be mistaken, and if so someone please let me know, but if I'm correct then it's a complete shame that "real life" UN proposals get shafted.

Yes, it is a satire... it stimulates political thought but in a comical fasion... remember, the main point of the site is for people to have fun and buy Max's book...

By the wording of this resolution, a community may legalize gang rape by decaring it to be funny.

The only thing that's funny about that is your convoluted logic. Do you seriously think that there's a nation on earth that doesn't find gang rape to be "contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community" or "unduly hurtful to a particular individual?" If there is, that nation's not going to look to this resolution to rationalize their psychotic behavior.
Thank you, Miss Cleo. Come visit one of Noncoercion's mining communities sometime.

As a matter of fact, those exceptions encompass virtually all the excuses invoked for the violations of the right to humor. For instance, all the examples of violent anti-humorism put forward by Orion Nebula or 1 Infinite Loop are fully covered by these exceptions - community standards and hurting the individual.

The right to humor is in fact part of the right to free speech and should only have the restraints acceptable for free speech: humorous expression should be free of lies, insults, and unacceptable discriminations not related to the issue being duscussed (such as those based on gender, hair color, religion, race, handicap, etc.). The only remedy against such excesses should be the relief for damages incurred, obtained through a lawsuit.

As I am sure you know, this is not a free site in the terms of “free speech.” It is Max’s site, and Max does not allow all things to be on the page. I would simply like to petition the UN to stand for the principles of humor. I agree with some of your language reservations, though this is the best I have seen yet to broach the issue.

As to the issue that Orio and Loop touched on, I think it is actually important to have limitations. One should not be permitted to make jokes on a private forum like this at the expense at others. They should not be allowed to belittle groups they disagree with. They should be allowed to be a general jerk at the expensise of another, only to say “It’s just a joke.” In other words, the rules now on flaming, should still apply. And I think in a public forum it makes sense.

I am not suggesting the same should be in a public world, in my home, or around me in general. Put such limitations seem fine with me on the game, and do not take away from the appeal to simply let laugh rule.

The reason that there is no free speech on this site is most likely because it is max his site. He is putting to the world. And though he claims he is not reponsable, in the way that he cannot read every word and check what we sent in, on a way you could say that max is saying all this. His computer is spreading it, true is qouting us like *bieb*, but it is his computer doing it. Therefore he can choice not to say certain thing and he used moderators to act in his place to delete certain things, so his computer is not telling it to the world anymore. If on the other hand you would have your own server, things are quite different. You could say a lot of the things you couldn't say here. And you could flame all you like. Then there is only the matter of breaking the law.

Though the law you server is standing in ;). Just that you can scream so loud it can be heard all over the world....tja.

But that is why some people are sending from the middle of the sea. No mansland ;). So no laws either :P.

As a newly-appointed UN member, and above-all-else a defender of humor, I had to vote against this. Judging by your last sentence or two, you want to make sure humor is allowed, so long as no one is offended.

If you're going to grant the right to humor, it can have no bounds. You can't say that all jokes must first go before a board to determine whether they are against the society's morals. Either you're allowed to tell a joke or you're not. You can't take each joke on an individual basis, yet still claim that you have a freedom to humor.

The Rogue Nations of My Fancy thrive on our boundless humor. After all, our leading industry is Information Technology - a contradictory term in and of itself.

-The Rogue Nations of My Fancy

I vote for this. Every one has a right to laugh. :)

I vote for this. Every one has a right to laugh. :)

Well said!

And in that spirit, :lol:

I just noticed that the Freedom of Humor Resolution has passed the United Nations. My sincere thanks go out to all the nations who voted to support it.

Indeed, it's good to see that intelligent, powerful nations can come together and get something meaningful accomplished.

it's good to see that intelligent, powerful nations can come together and get something meaningful accomplished.

Hahaha... MEANINGFUL? What exactly is meaningful about a stupid, pointless, and useless resolution that actually LIMITS freedom of speech?

Any resolution that ends with "unless in violation of community standards" is a guaranteed NO vote from me. You people make me sick, and I am offended that there were almost 10,000 stupid people that voted yes to this.

President
Armed Republic of Kiectzen

We stand by our original statement. We see you don't do much reading between the lines... :lol:

it's good to see that intelligent, powerful nations can come together and get something meaningful accomplished.

Hahaha... MEANINGFUL? What exactly is meaningful about a stupid, pointless, and useless resolution that actually LIMITS freedom of speech?

Any resolution that ends with "unless in violation of community standards" is a guaranteed NO vote from me. You people make me sick, and I am offended that there were almost 10,000 stupid people that voted yes to this.

President
Armed Republic of Kiectzen

So, may I assume that you were one of the 10,000?

Greetings fellow UN members! I would like to recant my previous decision in the issue of Freedom of Humor. Although the decisoin has already been made, I am deeply apologetic for my own decicion. As a leader of the Most Serene Republic of Hubbyville, I only wish the best for each and every one of my citizens. This includes all civil rights. Just like the rest of you, I hope one day to be a great nation and to be well-supported. Best of luck to evryone. Cherrio! :lol:

Our communities have decided that the resolution is immoral. Therefore, according to its morality clause, it has been nullified in Noncoercion.

Our communities have decided that the resolution is immoral. Therefore, according to its morality clause, it has been nullified in Noncoercion.

Now now, you'd been so eager to keep this law from passing so that you could inflict your will on others, but now you take your ball and bat and go home? We congratulate you with utmost sarcasm on showing grace in defeat.

So now it's passed, are we going to have a Keystone Cops, type Humour Police going around making sure that this resolution is adhered to?

All I can say is, make sure your tongues are planted firmly in your cheeks, and "warning, humour" signs are displayed in case you offend any one!

*/Takes tongue out of left cheek

I do know someone who thinks it is amusing to physically hurt people, and accusses them of a lack of humor if they complain.

He's now in jail.

Will this law free him? :shock: