NationStates Jolt Archive

Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?

The UN ambassador of the Democratic Republic of Ganymerica would like to staunchly make it clear that the position of the Ganymerican government is that even if they voted for it, they think this proposal doesn't go far enough!

Freedom of humor shouldn't be limited to "where the goverment think it's morally appropriate". It should be independent of that. Otherwise, it's an assault on the freedom of speech. Speaking of which; Isn't the freedom of humor pretty much already granted in the freedom of speech?

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.

I agree.

The Holy Empire of Colleenbawn, having only just been granted membership of the UN, will vote against this pointless resolution. This resolution would be impossible to police, as was mentioned earlier, and its non specific nature would actually make no difference to nations, as it leaves it up to the government to decide what is an appropriate joke and which is not.

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.

I agree.

As do I.

Translated from Warleese:

As a represenative of the great state of Warla... under the watchful eye of the wargods... I proclaim this proposal a travesty. We shall find vehemenently against any proposal that promises freedom to slander and verbally abuse the leaders of our magnificent sovereignty.

This is a <Translation Not Available> disaster. If the UN forces such a resolution on its memberstates today... tommorrow it will reach further and demand freedom of speech amongst all its membership.

Freedom of speech begets chaos... and chaos is evil. Vote away this terrible resolution that is a stepping stone towards freedom of speech, chaos.

I guess I should see the humor in this.

Humor is allowed, except when disallowed (And 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.)

But there is one thing I though was even more funny. The discrepancy between intend and effect. One situation in which humor is disallowed was not named in this list. Though some governments would have no qualm against letting it fall under the moral standard :P. And when that happens the human rights would even go down :P:P:P. Humor is often used to criticize governments. Ergo this law does nothing for human rights. It will increase politcial freedom a lot :P.

Good luck with it :).

Anyways thought it funny enough from a not serious perspective to vote yea to it.

Oh ps. If anybody is wondering where those rediculous laws that show up in tv programs as jokes of the century come from. How they ever became law.......I guess we all know the answer :).

That means that people with the marginal insight like you and me had a chance to meddle in politics :P.

ps. On a roleplaying aspect, if this passes it forbidden to ban anyone from a forum for an opposite political view as long as he tells it funny ;).
Just so all you remember that, I intend to use it :P.

The UN Ambassador for the Commonwealth of Vervun votes for the proposal with full support of Chairman Sondar, the Inner Circle and the Legislature. The right to laughter is a matter of free will, for which all individuals should be entitled to.

The UN Ambassador for the Commonwealth of Vervun votes for the proposal with full support of Chairman Sondar, the Inner Circle and the Legislature. The right to laughter is a matter of free will, for which all individuals should be entitled to.

We are curious as to how anyone thinks it possible that laughter or humour could be forbidden by law? Humour is an inherent part of the human condition, no more legislatable than breathing. This resolution is a waste of our time and energy (much like the last one), and we are voting no, and we encourage others to do the same. It would be nice to know that UN voting is determined by intelligent thought, and not mindless approval, and voting this down would definitely demonstrate that.

Ah, but I did not say it should be forbidden by law or legislature. In fact, I agree with you in that matter. The entitlement to laughter is, as you say, the same as breathing.

How is it a waste of time and energy? Please explain.

The duly authorized Cheif Arbiter of the Federation of Noncoercion pleads with the honorable representative of The Incorporated States of Neo Communists to reconsider its vote. Besides, there is greater humor in voting no.

Also, Noncoercion would like to point out to Vervun that when governments enumerate certain rights, there can be unintended consequences. If humor is defined as a right, then it can be denied as a right. Even the resolution itself says so.

Okay here is why I voted no

1. It a says that if it makes you happy you can do it. In other words if you want to kill someone you can't be prosecuted! If you want to ANYTHING! this will throw EVERYTHING into Anarchy.

Vervun recognises the opinions of Jaggonia, Noncoercion, Zeke and others. As a result, Vervun has withdrawn it's for vote and for the time being will abstain, pending re-discussion with the Chairman and Inner Circle.

Translated from Warleese:

As a represenative of the great state of Warla... under the watchful eye of the wargods... I proclaim this proposal a travesty. We shall find vehemenently against any proposal that promises freedom to slander and verbally abuse the leaders of our magnificent sovereignty.

This is a <Translation Not Available> disaster. If the UN forces such a resolution on its memberstates today... tommorrow it will reach further and demand freedom of speech amongst all its membership.

Freedom of speech begets chaos... and chaos is evil. Vote away this terrible resolution that is a stepping stone towards freedom of speech, chaos.

Abysseria wishes to remind all UN members that freedom of speech is already required of all member nations as stated in the Universal Bill of Rights resolution implemented by majority vote on 08.08.03. Article two of that resolution gives human beings the right to express themselves through free speech and the media without any interference. As such, the delegate from Warla's argument is moot and incorrect. It also makes this resolution useless and inappropriate. Abysseria respectfully requests that the moderators scan all proposals and remove those that are already enforced by other UN resolutions.

Abysseria wishes it known that given free speech's already protected status (and understanding that the resolution currently enforced on free speech is remarkably broad) this resolution has no place in the UN. We have voted NO enthusiastically. Humor, much like pornography, satire, sarcasm, and other mehtods of expression is inherently protected in our currently enforced UN resolution.

There is no reason to vote yes for this resolution, as it has already been passed in a different form.

VOTE NO, and prevent this body from over-legislating.

upon reading the resolution, that it is itself a joke. Vote no. What do politicians know from funny?

Can anyone esle see how moronic it is that people are trying to be serious about humour?

Can anyone esle see how moronic it is that people are trying to be serious about humour?Not at all. Should a man be drunk before discussing alcoholism?

Upon reviewing the text of the proposal, Ganymerica has withdrawn it's yay-vote and rather votes nay on this proposal. It opens up a loophole for tyrannic governments to crack down on dissidents. This resolution cannot pass through the hallowed chamber!

Press Release from the United Socialist States of Kholodsk:

The USSK is officially opposed to the proposed "Right to Humor" legislation. We join with Abysseria in denouncing this overlegislation. In addition to diliatory and absurd suggestions that humor is essential to human nature, this resolution introduces the concept that humor is somehow external to the freedom of expression which has previously been recognized by this agust body. By allowing individual governments to censure humor is against the "accepted moral standards of the community," it paves the way of oppressive regimes to officially ban any form of political dissent with official state views.

The USSK must vote no on this proposal, as we have always fought to give our citizens the greatest possible right to freedom of expression, even if an increase in foul language is the result of such a policy. While our government, should this legislation be enacted, will by no means crack down on humor, we fear for the rest of the world.

Signed,
For the people of the United Socialist States of Kholodsk,
General Secretary Nikolai Fomich Myasnikov

Are people voting for this resolution?

Can anyone esle see how moronic it is that people are trying to be serious about humour?Not at all. Should a man be drunk before discussing alcoholism?
Agreed. It is not the creation of this resolution that is in doubt, but rather, the resolution itself, and perhaps the logic behind a resolution created when one already pertains to its topic.

The Armed Republic of Jere has voted against such a foolish resolution. If passed, we will refuse to comply with such idiotic demands. The UN is quickly turning to a place where morons gather and attempt to pass insane laws.

How idiotic!! how can we say that all nations should count humor to be ok not all nations have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the doorway to civil wars people. if every nutcase could rattle off what they thought we had have brawls on the street. this is why this resolution should not pass. Nital is peacefull because there are no arguments everyone has their opinion but they should keep it to themselves. a person is wise. people are stupid!!!

The citizens of the Principality of Puffinstuff, although they love a good joke just as much as anybody else, are already not at risk of getting persecuted as a result of telling jokes.

The big problem that we have with the Freedom of Humor is that member nations are given the ability to make laws in regards to banning the exercise of right to humor when said humor is "contrary to the accepted moral standard". You see, due to the Universal Bill of Rights, no government within the UN has the right to impose upon anybody's right to freedom of speech. This freedom of speech includes speech of which the government may disapprove. This freedom of speech applies to humor that is "contrary to the accepted moral standard".

Furthermore, underneath this freedom of speech, people are allowed to say things that are "hurtful to a particular individual or group". This is what makes freedom of speech a double-edged sword; yes, you have the right to it, but so does your enemy.

Thus, the Freedom of Humor resolution stands in stark contrast to the Universal Bill of Rights. Besides, we already have the right to freedom of humor as a result of the above. As the representative from the Principality of Puffinstuff, I hereby place my vote against this unnecessary resolution.

But, since the resolution will doubtlessly pass due to the non-message-board-viewing public's love of a good, silly resolution... A plate of eggs walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve breakfast here." (Drumroll)

Noncoercion finds it strange that there is very little debate here, and yet the resolution is running away. In fact, there is almost universal disdain for this resolution from socialists to libertarians. How is it that the resolution is presently passing by nearly a 4 to 1 margin?

Is there not some way for this august body to stop and rescind frivolous resolutions that are railroading their way through the opposition of almost all thoughtful leaders?

Again, the Federation of Glorious Humanity finds itself reconsidering its vote on a resolution. We cast a yea vote for this initially, but upon reading these excellent arguments, particularly the one that this resolution is redundant, we have opted to change our vote to go against this resolution. We thank the excellent nations here for pointing out that this is already covered by a previous resolution, as the Universal Bill of Rights predates Glorious Humanity's entry into the UN.

Alexander Johnson
UN Ambassador
Federation of Glorious Humanity

When will everyone learn that the UN exists only to keep nations intact, not to push the values of one or a few on the whole?

This is yet again an INVASIVE proposal that wants to tell ME how to run my nation.

The UN should stick to fishing rights in international waters and stay out of my nation!

The Benevolent Jenny

This resolution appears redundant. Humor is covered under free speech, and it is covered here as well I think it is redundant because humor has already been convered under free speech, we are trying to add it here as well. I am trying to be funny, but notice that I didn't have to have this amendment to attemp to be funny. My right to try to be funny is already covered by an amendment, and trying to protect it again is redundant.

Although Rockinia agrees that all people should have the right to make jokes, to pass a resolution is pointless. Who is to decide what is a joke and what is not? Criminals committting attempted murder or robbery will claim it was "just a joke" and therefore, will be able to escape based on the passing of this resolution

I wish one of the now past 2000 nations that actually voted for this resolution why they think this resolution is needed and how it will make the world a better place.

So far, there have been no arguments(at least no consistent ones) here for the resolution, only arguments against.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.

We in Gurthark oppose this resolution on the grounds that it is contentless. It essentially comes down to "all people have a right to humor, unless someone objects." We don't think it would be particularly destructive if it passes, but we worry about the lowering of the tone in the United Nations that it represents, and we worry even more that the vast majority of the United Nations finds themselves unwilling to either agree or argue with the points being raised in the forum.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The free citizens of Noncoercion have asked me to express their appreciation and recognition of those nation-states who have voted against the resolution, and in particular those who have had the courage and vision to reverse their votes.

Our citizens engage in free and fair trade and vow that they will remember and greatly favor those who here have expressed their outrage and disgust at this absurd resolution.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.Indeed. Perhaps the time has come for resolutions that redefine the role of the UN itself. There should be no votes from ignorance and apathy.

PEOPLE, let's vote against this nonsense resolution! This is just the most recent of a not well thought out resolution.


Whereas all enlightened nations of the world DO recognize the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to include the consequent freedom of speech and expression, this resolution is QUITE and NEEDLESSLY redundant.

How so? Namely, the "freedom of humor" is certainly IMPLIED WITHIN, and truly ESSENTIAL TO the freedom of speech and expression! Stated differently, the freedom of humor cannot be without the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Furthermore, this resolution is wholly unenforceable and a continued threat to national sovereignty.

The resolution states that no member states shall make 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" (emphasis added). It's with this exception that the resolution is tremendously problematic.

Namely, HOW will what is and what isn't "contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community" and what is or what isn't "unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group" be determined?

Surely these aren't standards that can realistically be legislated. The reason why is because the understanding of these defitions vary from person to person and culture to culture.

Please, make a real difference in the UN and vote AGAINST this proposal!

Isn't the freedom of humor pretty much already granted in the freedom of speech?

It's implicit, but as I think we've all observed from the political correctness movement, it needs to be explicit. As I've stated elsewhere I would support any measures which would strengthen this proposal, but I think as it stands it is a necessary first step.

The Holy Empire of Colleenbawn, having only just been granted membership of the UN, will vote against this pointless resolution. This resolution would be impossible to police, as was mentioned earlier, and its non specific nature would actually make no difference to nations, as it leaves it up to the government to decide what is an appropriate joke and which is not.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the United Nations is SUPPOSED to do? The UN is an organization of governments. It is not, in and of itself, a government. Therefore the appropriate thing for the UN to do is to establish broad guidelines for the member nations to follow and then allow them to create their own legislation.

Look, no right is absolute and governments make legislation all the time to determine when a particular right applies and when it does not. Here's an analogy: The United States Constitution guarentees freedom of speech. Each state has passed laws defining things like libel and slander that limit this right and define when the exercise of someone's right to free speech has begun to interfere with the rights of others. That's exactly what each member state of the UN will need to do when this resolution passes.

Once again a Resolution has been proposed that is faulty in its' design.
Further, who determines what is “Humor”? Many consider the violence of slapstick as funny while the satire of Swift, Twain and Zappa are not embraced by all.
The Republic of Mikes Hope steadfastly asserts its sovereign right to NOT have ambiguous definitions imposed upon our peoples tastes in the absurd notion that “Humor” has anything whatsoever to do with Human Rights.

I wish one of the now past 2000 nations that actually voted for this resolution why they think this resolution is needed and how it will make the world a better place.

So far, there have been no arguments(at least no consistent ones) here for the resolution, only arguments against.

Several of us have already done so on the previous thread regarding this issue, at: <http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84239>.

Mostly, I suspect that most of the nations supporting the resolution find its value self-evident and therefore feel no need to pontificate on the subject.

This is just another liberal resolution that says: You can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend me. It's more of that political correctness crap that is going around.

My initial thought was to support this proposal. However, I consider it important to make an informed decision, so I looked at the debate about it. As I see it, those opposed have made a much stronger argument than those supporting. Freedom of Humor is indeed an aspect of Freedom of Speech, which is guarantied already. By 'granting' freedom of humor UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, this proposal actually WEAKENS freedom of speech. Not only is it redundant, it's counterproductive. I have changed my mind and will vote against it (unless someone comes up with a strong argument supporting it before the voting ends). However, I strongly suspect that it will pass. :( I wish more members of the UN read the debates....

Although Rockinia agrees that all people should have the right to make jokes, to pass a resolution is pointless. Who is to decide what is a joke and what is not? Criminals committting attempted murder or robbery will claim it was "just a joke" and therefore, will be able to escape based on the passing of this resolution

Sort of like somebody making the point that killing someone is "free speech" and they are just trying to say they don't like them? Redundancy is the key here. Free speech is already protected, which by definition included humor. So we must be redundant and pass something that has already been passed. Sort of like passing a law that says the death penalty is ok, then passing another law that says executions are ok. Completely pointless and redundant.

Well, glad to see a healthy debate, but let’s think things through a bit shan’t we?



Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

Firstly, Christopher is against people who refer to themselves in the third person, aren’t we Christopher? Now, I don’t even understand this concept you are suggesting… it simply makes no sense. The United States Governmnet allows abortion, it does not mean it owns the fetus’. The govermnet allows freedom of the press, but it does not actually own any press—England is a different story, but not because of the reason you prescribe.



But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?


Simply, people are allowed the freedom to rule themselves. I would hardily object to any UN Resolution that told the UN what is funny and what is not. You would support a more fascist ruling of such a resolution?

As I read it, this would support the UN’s view that nations are allowed to humor, and that outside of egregious rubbish that the world will acknowledge each region’s right to self rule.



When will everyone learn that the UN exists only to keep nations intact, not to push the values of one or a few on the whole?

This is yet again an INVASIVE proposal that wants to tell ME how to run my nation.

The UN should stick to fishing rights in international waters and stay out of my nation!


It would tell you that you have the right to decide what it acceptable humor within your nation... hardly an "invasive" proposal.

This sort of proposal is vital mostly to prevent international disputes or global censorship simply because the right of freedom is being perued.



This resolution appears redundant. Humor is covered under free speech, and it is covered here as well I think it is redundant because humor has already been convered under free speech, we are trying to add it here as well. I am trying to be funny, but notice that I didn't have to have this amendment to attemp to be funny. My right to try to be funny is already covered by an amendment, and trying to protect it again is redundant.[quote=Layarteb] not.


Might as well say why have basic rights protected, because you know, they are basic.

[quote="Layarteb"]This is just another liberal resolution that says: You can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend me. It's more of that political correctness crap that is going around.

Actually the stereotype is that liberals complain about everything. They would, again stereotypically, say that that humor should be limited as it could offend others. This would therefore be the opposite of political correctness. Sorry, but have you been drinking? I mean, no offence, I have had several during the day and have been able to keep my stereotypes in tact. You might as well say that Hispanics always eat peanuts or jews always prefer cherry Starbursts. Don’t ger me wrong, making up stereotypes that make no sense in RL can be fun, don’t want to discourage you.

Well, glad to see a healthy debate, but let’s think things through a bit shan’t we?



Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

Firstly, Christopher is against people who refer to themselves in the third person, aren’t we Christopher? Now, I don’t even understand this concept you are suggesting… it simply makes no sense. The United States Governmnet allows abortion, it does not mean it owns the fetus’. The govermnet allows freedom of the press, but it does not actually own any press—England is a different story, but not because of the reason you prescribe.



But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?


Simply, people are allowed the freedom to rule themselves. I would hardily object to any UN Resolution that told the UN what is funny and what is not. You would support a more fascist ruling of such a resolution?

As I read it, this would support the UN’s view that nations are allowed to humor, and that outside of egregious rubbish that the world will acknowledge each region’s right to self rule.



When will everyone learn that the UN exists only to keep nations intact, not to push the values of one or a few on the whole?

This is yet again an INVASIVE proposal that wants to tell ME how to run my nation.

The UN should stick to fishing rights in international waters and stay out of my nation!


It would tell you that you have the right to decide what it acceptable humor within your nation... hardly an "invasive" proposal.

This sort of proposal is vital mostly to prevent international disputes or global censorship simply because the right of freedom is being perued.



This resolution appears redundant. Humor is covered under free speech, and it is covered here as well I think it is redundant because humor has already been convered under free speech, we are trying to add it here as well. I am trying to be funny, but notice that I didn't have to have this amendment to attemp to be funny. My right to try to be funny is already covered by an amendment, and trying to protect it again is redundant.

No it is not.

Might as well say why have basic rights protected, because you know, they are basic.

This is just another liberal resolution that says: You can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend me. It's more of that political correctness crap that is going around.

Actually the stereotype is that liberals complain about everything. They would, again stereotypically, say that that humor should be limited as it could offend others. This would therefore be the opposite of political correctness. Sorry, but have you been drinking? I mean, no offence, I have had several during the day and have been able to keep my stereotypes in tact. You might as well say that Hispanics always eat peanuts or jews always prefer cherry Starbursts. Don’t ger me wrong, making up stereotypes that make no sense in RL can be fun, don’t want to discourage you.

I voted against this Bill because it legalises PC censorship

I'm voting against this because it is stupid and redundant

I find it appalling that the members of this institution would be so close minded as to vote against a resolution such as this. In your government there must be people frolicking about daily with flowers thrown at their feet and jokes filling the air. To assume that all people of the world have this same luxury to express themselves is typical of men and their ignorance.

Bill Maher was removed from his show because he used humorous sarcasm against the president during a time of crisis in the United States. Where was your freedom of speech then? There was no protection for this individual wage earning position yet you claim there is. Redundancy indeed. To claim that this is a useless resolution is to ignore the world about you and stick your head in the sand.

In how many nations can humor against one in a high position get you jailed or tortured? If one were to make a joke about Dick Cheney involving some sort of maiming and there were an FBI agent about, well.... you can guess the outcome. I'm sure that in Germany during World War II the results were suite similar. Do not make fun of the fuhrer for he is almost a god. You must have the right to make fun of those in power and those around you. It's how you keep the attention of those who want nothing but to have fun and be happy which comprise 95% of the world.

There are too many defamatory laws to allow free speech as it applies to humor to be truly allowed. We must break through these laws and this resolution allows us to do just that. Be men for once and not just politicians. Stand up for the right to protect humor as it may be the last form of political expression to be able to keep the attention of the MTV generation and get them to stand up for the rights their forefathers fought for.

The UN ambassador of Eurusia disagrees with this because your people could be making fun of the government and its leaders. And that the government can take away any rights of its citizens if it wants to! :twisted:

Noncoercion finds it strange that there is very little debate here, and yet the resolution is running away. In fact, there is almost universal disdain for this resolution from socialists to libertarians. How is it that the resolution is presently passing by nearly a 4 to 1 margin?

Is there not some way for this august body to stop and rescind frivolous resolutions that are railroading their way through the opposition of almost all thoughtful leaders?

WORD.

Munizia is shocked at the tremendous volume of approval at this legislative atrocity. We doubt, however, that any endeavor to have the resolution rescinded will succeed, as one can expect the unreasoning "leaders" who have voted in favor of this present resolution will similarly oppose our efforts.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.


I've voted on many a resolution. Until today, I'd never been to this forum. There are a lot of people who don't roleplay, so why would they come here? Most, myself included, just place a vote and leave. Roleplayed discussions mean nothing to us.

Eredron opposes this resolution, for its sheer idiocy.

In how many nations can humor against one in a high position get you jailed or tortured? If one were to make a joke about Dick Cheney involving some sort of maiming and there were an FBI agent about, well.... you can guess the outcome.


So now I can go the infamous crowded theatre and scream "FIRE" and cause people to get trampled to death. It's not protected speech in some nations, but people can do it because they think it's funny. I think I see the logic now.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.


I've voted on many a resolution. Until today, I'd never been to this forum. There are a lot of people who don't roleplay, so why would they come here? Most, myself included, just place a vote and leave. Roleplayed discussions mean nothing to us.

Don't you generally find voting more meaningful when you've had a chance to consider the arguments for or against something? This strikes me as akin to voting in an election without listening to, reading about, or discussing any of the candidates.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[OOC: Yes, I know this is a game, and neither the votes nor the discussions have an impact on anything outside the game. I just find it mysterious that someone might take something seriously enough to vote on it (and let it affect their gaming experience, which is purely optional, since you don't have to be a mamber of the U.N.), but not take it seriously enough to engage in any sort of discussion about whether it's a good idea. Although this is an IC forum, it's one where you can easily do away with most of the trappings of RP if you don't like them. Just don't sign your posts, or talk about which members of your government have which opinions about the proposal.]

I'm voting against this because it is stupid and redundant

Your logic defeats me.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.


I've voted on many a resolution. Until today, I'd never been to this forum. There are a lot of people who don't roleplay, so why would they come here? Most, myself included, just place a vote and leave. Roleplayed discussions mean nothing to us.

[OOC: Yes, I know this is a game, and neither the votes nor the discussions have an impact on anything outside the game. I just find it mysterious that someone might take something seriously enough to vote on it (and let it affect their gaming experience, which is purely optional, since you don't have to be a mamber of the U.N.), but not take it seriously enough to engage in any sort of discussion about whether it's a good idea. Although this is an IC forum, it's one where you can easily do away with most of the trappings of RP if you don't like them. Just don't sign your posts, or talk about which members of your government have which opinions about the proposal.]

I vote for the resolutions I like, against the ones I don't - I make a decision and leave. I see no point in stating my nation's position IC, and I save my debating for the General forum. This may affect my UN nation at the time, but not in any way I disapprove of. It would seem that I am not alone in this behavior, either.

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.
I agree.
As do I.

the whole region of economic rise does agree with these countrys

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

I concur.

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

I concur.

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,

I concur.

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.

I concur for the reasons stated above.

And 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.

Obviously the chief issue with this clause are the exceptions. They are vague and will probably lead to this resolution being unenforceable. However, I see no harm in this resolution passing. It puts the UN on record as supporting humor [ooc: and improves human rights in all UN countries game-wise], even if it is somewhat vague.

Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

I dissent. Rights are an attribute of humanity and are not contingent on property ownership.

Freedom of humor shouldn't be limited to "where the goverment think it's morally appropriate". It should be independent of that. Otherwise, it's an assault on the freedom of speech. Speaking of which; Isn't the freedom of humor pretty much already granted in the freedom of speech?

I concur. However, it is important to note that this resolution does not prevent humor from being permitted in member nations even if the right is not expressly conferred herein. The phrasing of this resolution permits individual nations to recognize a broader right to humor than the UN does.

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.

Although its effect is practically meaningless, it does put the UN on record as being pro-humor. The Goobergunchian High Council [ooc: think of the U.S. Senate] often votes for non-binding "Sense of the High Council" measures. They have no affect, but do send a signal.

Abysseria wishes to remind all UN members that freedom of speech is already required of all member nations as stated in the Universal Bill of Rights resolution implemented by majority vote on 08.08.03. Article two of that resolution gives human beings the right to express themselves through free speech and the media without any interference. As such, the delegate from Warla's argument is moot and incorrect. It also makes this resolution useless and inappropriate. Abysseria respectfully requests that the moderators scan all proposals and remove those that are already enforced by other UN resolutions.

[ooc: Interesting point...maybe you should take this up in the Technical forum?]

Upon reviewing the text of the proposal, Ganymerica has withdrawn it's yay-vote and rather votes nay on this proposal. It opens up a loophole for tyrannic governments to crack down on dissidents. This resolution cannot pass through the hallowed chamber!

They'll do this if it doesn't pass. Just because it isn't specified in the UN resolution doesn't mean you can't do it yourself.

Press Release from the United Socialist States of Kholodsk:

The USSK is officially opposed to the proposed "Right to Humor" legislation. We join with Abysseria in denouncing this overlegislation. In addition to diliatory and absurd suggestions that humor is essential to human nature, this resolution introduces the concept that humor is somehow external to the freedom of expression which has previously been recognized by this agust body. By allowing individual governments to censure humor is against the "accepted moral standards of the community," it paves the way of oppressive regimes to officially ban any form of political dissent with official state views.

The USSK must vote no on this proposal, as we have always fought to give our citizens the greatest possible right to freedom of expression, even if an increase in foul language is the result of such a policy. While our government, should this legislation be enacted, will by no means crack down on humor, we fear for the rest of the world.

Signed,
For the people of the United Socialist States of Kholodsk,
General Secretary Nikolai Fomich Myasnikov

Interesting. However, I don't see how this resolution permits this activity...keeping in place the status quo (which this resolution does) is not the same thing as actively allowing dictator activities.

Noncoercion finds it strange that there is very little debate here, and yet the resolution is running away. In fact, there is almost universal disdain for this resolution from socialists to libertarians. How is it that the resolution is presently passing by nearly a 4 to 1 margin?

[ooc: I've been on NS since May. Since then, I've seen only 5 resolutions fail. The UN forum is not commonly frequented. As you can see from this thread, there aren't many older nations such as myself posting.]

When will everyone learn that the UN exists only to keep nations intact, not to push the values of one or a few on the whole?

You know that that's not true.

I wish to reference at this time the following thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84239

At this time, Goobergunchia votes FOR.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate since mid-June 2003

So now I can go the infamous crowded theatre and scream "FIRE" and cause people to get trampled to death. It's not protected speech in some nations, but people can do it because they think it's funny. I think I see the logic now.

Sir, your attempt at sarcasm does not fit into the definition of humorous and therefore is not covered by this proposal. If you had taken the time to not only read the proposal but to comprehend it as well you would have noticed where the proposal indicates "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"

I believe your analogy falls into this category. If you still do not understand the above quoted passage I will all too happy to take some time out of my day and explain it to you using alternate words that are more appropriate to heads of state.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I can't believe this is being seriously debated. Isn't there some kind of moderation to stop frivolous crap and trolls getting through as resolutions to be enacted on a global scale? And those of you prepared to bleat about the "right" to free speech, note that in the US constitution, the point of free speech was to be able to criticise the government without being slapped down, something even my "corrupt dictatorship" would support, rather than upholding the "right" of the press to make people's private lives public. The scope of what the press has the right to publish would be more productive than this, and even that is something that should fall under the jusristiction of individual nations, not a body like the UN.

Wow, I'm quite amazed at how blatantly wrong this proposal is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for free speech, but this interpretation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is just plain wrong.

When Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", the pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of property, not the pursuit of some abstract emotional state. The government does not have an obligation to make you happy, it has an obligation to protect the rights of private property. At least, that is what our nation was founded upon.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about American history knows that this is so, and can also be quite clearly seen since so much of what Jefferson wrote (and indeed, all the pro-democracy anti-monarchial rhetoric of the time) was based on Locke. And as Locke said, the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty and property" and Jefferson merely sugarcoated "property" by calling it the pursuit of happiness.

Wow, I'm quite amazed at how blatantly wrong this proposal is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for free speech, but this interpretation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is just plain wrong.

When Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", the pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of property, not the pursuit of some abstract emotional state. The government does not have an obligation to make you happy, it has an obligation to protect the rights of private property. At least, that is what our nation was founded upon.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about American history knows that this is so, and can also be quite clearly seen since so much of what Jefferson wrote (and indeed, all the pro-democracy anti-monarchial rhetoric of the time) was based on Locke. And as Locke said, the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty and property" and Jefferson merely sugarcoated "property" by calling it the pursuit of happiness.

I think humor is a delicate subject. To properly address this, we'd need to form an UN committee on humor to decide what is funny, meant to be funny, or just stupid.

This is just another way for people to insulted.

When Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", the pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of property, not the pursuit of some abstract emotional state. The government does not have an obligation to make you happy, it has an obligation to protect the rights of private property. At least, that is what our nation was founded upon.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about American history knows that this is so, and can also be quite clearly seen since so much of what Jefferson wrote (and indeed, all the pro-democracy anti-monarchial rhetoric of the time) was based on Locke. And as Locke said, the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty and property" and Jefferson merely sugarcoated "property" by calling it the pursuit of happiness.

America...I always hear about this country America. I've never been able to locate it, though...I wish people would stop making things up.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: And yes, in RL I live in America. But Lord Evif doesn't. Please stay in character.]

right to humor?????? rubbish... Humor... much like all the other intangible emotions of human life... is in the eye of the beholder.

No one will tell the citizens of the Dreaded Olive what they can think is humorus or not!

--- strongly against!

I find it appalling that the members of this institution would be so close minded as to vote against a resolution such as this. In your government there must be people frolicking about daily with flowers thrown at their feet and jokes filling the air. To assume that all people of the world have this same luxury to express themselves is typical of men and their ignorance.

Bill Maher was removed from his show because he used humorous sarcasm against the president during a time of crisis in the United States. Where was your freedom of speech then? There was no protection for this individual wage earning position yet you claim there is. Redundancy indeed. To claim that this is a useless resolution is to ignore the world about you and stick your head in the sand.

While a noble argument, you overlook the fact that Bill Maher worked for a private company, and was under contract, a contract that - in all likelyhood - gave him boundaries in which he could or couldn't speak. He agreed to that contract - he gave away his personal liberty in a personal contract. His reward? A paycheck. That was his choice. Keep in mind also that Bill Maher, should he have felt offended, or that his personal liberties were crushed, could have sued (and he very well may have, for all I know). The point is, he chose to work in that position and he chose to give up his liberties. Don't blame the government for his choice.

And as such, humor is a part of free speech. Free speech is already protected. If individual member countries choose to pass different legistlation as to what constitutes "speech," that is their perogative. You have no right to prevent countries from determining their own notions of speech.

Upon reviewing the text of the proposal, Ganymerica has withdrawn it's yay-vote and rather votes nay on this proposal. It opens up a loophole for tyrannic governments to crack down on dissidents. This resolution cannot pass through the hallowed chamber!

They'll do this if it doesn't pass. Just because it isn't specified in the UN resolution doesn't mean you can't do it yourself.
At the moment, they can't
Allow me to quote the UN's Universal Bill of Rights.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.
So, no UN member nation can restrict what anyone says.

Now, allow me to quote the current resolution at vote.
...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...
So, if this resolution passes, then the courts of member nations can restrict what someone says, if they deem it contrary to moral standards.(Talk show hosts making jokes about sex can get fined, for instance.)
The way it is today, that would not be possible, without actually breaking Article 2.

Of course, this is international law, and it's murky. In an international trial, what would be weighted more? The new or the old resolution? I don't know.

And for those of you who say that Article 2 doesn't protect the freedom of speech as it stands today, would adding another resolution on top of this really help?

The options as I see it are

A) Allow the possibility of censorship for the greater good, in order to preserve that the principle trust of humor should exist at all. To insure in the legal sanctity of humor, while at the same time allowing nations to act for the benefit of the greater good of their people.
B) To insure the propriety of humor and disregard the greater good of the nation and region involved. All of the un-thought (ill-thought would be to give too much credit I fear) idea of this allowing people to yell fire and or allow murders or some such to use “humor” as a reason for justifiable criminal acts, these people would choose this option.
C) To declare that humor is not a basic human right not deserving to be preserved.



These are the three options. The UN resolution chooses option A. Until people discuss why options B or C are better, there is not yet a debate. These are the three possible takes on this issue, and anything else is simply beating chests, not intellectual debate.

we of the Eastern Alliance love a great joke

but does the UN propose to enforce the tellling of jokes...?

does it propose to set guidelines as to what is to be considered humourous or not...?

does the UN seek to establish a quota of one liners that must be uttered during a working day...?

does the UN seek a mandate to change the regieme of any nation of sourpusses...?

was this whole proposal a joke ???

if so...

we of the Eastern Alliance are not amused
and we vote no

From the Honorable Emir Robert Hun:
The most honorable society of Olavia and her people not only support fully this resolution, but we believe that it does not go nearly far enough.
Olavia and her people shall, from hereon in, enact proposals that not only encourage humour, but make it mandatory. Laughing daily shall be constitutional law, like smoke detectors. All who do not go throughout the day with a smile on their face and a song in their heart will be given a 20-year sentence in a "Laughing-Place Walled Facility" where they will be forced to have a 'zip-a-dee-do-da' outlook and to do various "joyful" labor deeds.
The parliament of Olavia supports me fully and will thusly have their families returned intact.

From the Honorable Emir Robert Hun:
The most honorable society of Olavia and her people not only support fully this resolution, but we believe that it does not go nearly far enough.
Olavia and her people shall, from hereon in, enact proposals that not only encourage humour, but make it mandatory. Laughing daily shall be constitutional law, like smoke detectors. All who do not go throughout the day with a smile on their face and a song in their heart will be given a 20-year sentence in a "Laughing-Place Walled Facility" where they will be forced to have a 'zip-a-dee-do-da' outlook and to do various "joyful" labor deeds.
The parliament of Olavia supports me fully and will thusly have their families returned intact.

I like this nation... :D

This is the most worthless resolution I have ever seen.
Here we have a worldwide governing body, capable of improving the condition of all mankind. And were seriously considering the implementation of laws governing humor!!

I think that there are to many representatives who have become career politicians. This resolution seems to simply be debate for the sake of debate.

Seriously, is this the most pressing global consideration? We are running the risk of losing credibility in the minds of our citizens. I've been a member of this organization for less than a month, and It's rapidly becoming apparent to me that the U.N is not much more than a talking head.
Has there EVER been a proposal that didn't pass? The U.N is being run like a kindergarden class. What's the next resolution going to be about? MANDATORY BATHING :roll: I'm seriously considering withdrawing from this farce.

It seeems to me that this proposal was "jest" a joke in itself, possibly to test the whole of UN nations to see if they indeed have a sense of humor. Hahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

While beautiful in sentiment, I must agree with my distinguished colleagues who have pointed out that this resolution has no resolution. You can not say something must remain completely free and then place limits of any kind.

The People of The Fiefdom of Squintyville vote Nay.

Our nation agrees with certain disidents that the moral standards section of the issue more or less nullifies it. However, we continue to suport the issue because this legislature could serve as legal grounds to grant amnesty to political satirists who have mocked the wrong government official. It could even be taken a step further as grounds to punish governments that terrorize their people from dissenting.

I am very concerned that yet again, the learned debate here in the forum shows a clear majority in favour of rejecting this motion and yet the voting indicates that, in all likelihood, this resolution is going to pass by a large majority. I fear that this is a product of the lack of respect for the workings of the UN that most member states have.

Either those who are voting yes to the motion are not taking the time to come to the forum and consider the debate on the resolution before making an informed decision as to how to vote or those who support this pointless motion are so unsure of their position that they have shied away from debating the issue. Either way, I believe that something must be done to encourage more scrutiny of resolutions in the forum before they are passed by an unthinking majority.

Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights. I dissent. Rights are an attribute of humanity and are not contingent on property ownership.
Noncoercion would remind the excellent ambassador from Goobergunchia that a man's life and his mind are also his property — property which God or nature has given him at birth. He was born with sovereignty over these, and it is immoral and unnatural to strip it from him.

No man can help the accident of his birth; therefore, no magistrate ethically may claim sovereignty over him merely by virtue of borders drawn on maps and wars fought over territory.

In any case, this resolution is illegal since the United Nations cannot enforce it. There is no method for determining what community standards any nation has, and therefore no means for making a judgment about whether nations are in compliance.

I refuse to comply with such a resolution. In no way does it benefit the United Nations, and therefor should be dismissed at once. If matters such as these continue, the UN will dominate our countries, restricting us from governing with our own laws that we will soon be unable to make any decisions, law-wise, for our nations.

Let the nations decide for themselves whether the freedom of speech is available. I prefer to have the poets shot, to prevent coded propoganda against my nation. Mocking the nation with laughter is no different.

It should be up to one's nation to regulate the freedom of speech within the country. Not the UN's.

The options as I see it are

A) Allow the possibility of censorship for the greater good, in order to preserve that the principle trust of humor should exist at all. To insure in the legal sanctity of humor, while at the same time allowing nations to act for the benefit of the greater good of their people.
B) To insure the propriety of humor and disregard the greater good of the nation and region involved. All of the un-thought (ill-thought would be to give too much credit I fear) idea of this allowing people to yell fire and or allow murders or some such to use “humor” as a reason for justifiable criminal acts, these people would choose this option.
C) To declare that humor is not a basic human right not deserving to be preserved.



These are the three options. The UN resolution chooses option A. Until people discuss why options B or C are better, there is not yet a debate. These are the three possible takes on this issue, and anything else is simply beating chests, not intellectual debate.



While I enjoy reading the same sentiment over and over again, that people refuse to even dsicuss the points of this issue, still love to see anyone actually against this proposal tackle the actual breakdown, as listed above.

Instead this has become a sounding board for nations that sound the exact same saying they A) misunderstand the proposal, B) refuse to read and respond to other posts (not just mine mind you, I don't care about that if debate is open), and C) nations would rather cast dispertions then insight. Disappointing, tho surely not the first time to find this in the UN.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Christopher Hitchens, Noncoercion believes that the trichotomy enumerated above is false.

A) Allow the possibility of censorship for the greater good, in order to preserve that the principle trust of humor should exist at all. To insure in the legal sanctity of humor, while at the same time allowing nations to act for the benefit of the greater good of their people.
It does not allow the possibility of censorship for the "greater good". I allows the possibility of censorship for morality.

B) To insure the propriety of humor and disregard the greater good of the nation and region involved. All of the un-thought (ill-thought would be to give too much credit I fear) idea of this allowing people to yell fire and or allow murders or some such to use “humor” as a reason for justifiable criminal acts, these people would choose this option.
In fact, the "greater good" as defined in this resolution is the whim of local power-bosses. The community standards clause effectively ties the hands of wider government, for example, from interfering in cases where the locals have declared that gang rape is funny.

C) To declare that humor is not a basic human right not deserving to be preserved.
Or (D) to declare that rights do not come from a chief magistrate, but from God or nature.

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.

I agree.

As do I.

The Free Land of Youghiogheny also opposes the resolution on the same grounds.

Voting 'no'.

Signed,
Xavier Jameson,
UN Delegate and Hoopy Frood

There is also another clause that is interesting:

And 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.
So, when Joe Blow says that a joke hurts his feelings, the entire world is prohibited from repeating it. What will that do to the forum?

After a heated debate in the Legislature, close re-examining of the text and listening to other nations statements on the UN Freedom of Humour Resolution, the Chairman of the Vervun Commonwealth today advised his UN diplomat to vote against the resolution.

So now I can go the infamous crowded theatre and scream "FIRE" and cause people to get trampled to death. It's not protected speech in some nations, but people can do it because they think it's funny. I think I see the logic now.

Sir, your attempt at sarcasm does not fit into the definition of humorous and therefore is not covered by this proposal. If you had taken the time to not only read the proposal but to comprehend it as well you would have noticed where the proposal indicates "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"

I believe your analogy falls into this category. If you still do not understand the above quoted passage I will all too happy to take some time out of my day and explain it to you using alternate words that are more appropriate to heads of state.

I read the resolution, and I understand it. No need to get snippy. The response was in regards to some previous posts. I understand the issue, and this is one that will have no impact whatsoever when it passes. I'm voiting against it because it is pointless and redundant, not becuase I think it is damaging in any way (like the last resolution that passed).

I don't like the resolution, although I agree that it exists as proof of humour itself.

While perhaps intended to prevent future fatwas (à la Salman Rushdie), humour is too culture-specific and ephemeral, to be legislated and protected globally. Plus, it'd be too easy to retreat from every offence with a version of "it was just a joke!".

I vote NO, and I'm trying to convince my region delegate to do so as well.

Freelander
Free Land of Reiki Practitioners

What I'd like to hear from those that support this resolution is this:

What about Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Rights, a resolution already passed by this body, makes this resolution neccessary? Article 2 promises complete freedom of speech. I repeat. Complete freedom of speech, that does include humor. There is no reason for this resolution to even be on our docket. Vote NO and prevent over-legislation.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.
Better not much than innappropriate resolutions.

The options as I see it are

A) Allow the possibility of censorship for the greater good, in order to preserve that the principle trust of humor should exist at all. To insure in the legal sanctity of humor, while at the same time allowing nations to act for the benefit of the greater good of their people.
B) To insure the propriety of humor and disregard the greater good of the nation and region involved. All of the un-thought (ill-thought would be to give too much credit I fear) idea of this allowing people to yell fire and or allow murders or some such to use “humor” as a reason for justifiable criminal acts, these people would choose this option.
C) To declare that humor is not a basic human right not deserving to be preserved.



These are the three options. The UN resolution chooses option A. Until people discuss why options B or C are better, there is not yet a debate. These are the three possible takes on this issue, and anything else is simply beating chests, not intellectual debate.

Article 2 of the UN's Universal Bill of Rights already grants freedom of expression through speech without limitations. There is no doubt this includes humor as well.

The reason I won't vote for this resolution is actually limiting the freedom of speech.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.

And that would be bad why? At least then when there is something to vote on it will be worth it.

Humor works best when it is subversive.
Lanny Bruce; George Carlin- they are (or were) funny because they break laws!
If we legitimize humor, we take away its power.

There is also another clause that is interesting:

And 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.
So, when Joe Blow says that a joke hurts his feelings, the entire world is prohibited from repeating it. What will that do to the forum?

un-du-ly adv. 1. To an excessive degree. 2. Improperly.

Insert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence here

There is also another clause that is interesting:

And 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.
So, when Joe Blow says that a joke hurts his feelings, the entire world is prohibited from repeating it. What will that do to the forum?

un-du-ly adv. 1. To an excessive degree. 2. Improperly.

Insert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence here
And what you fail to realize is that "excessive degree" or "Impropery" rests on the individual that is hearing/receiving/the butt of the joke. That is not a universal standard, much like "truth" is not a universal standard.

Basically, this resolution grants freedom of speech unless someone is offended. Right. This is a pro-censorship law pure and simple. Who came up with this idiocy -- the United States Congress?

VOTE NO!!! :evil:

Vote no on the humor bill. It has no real meaning, because, being that humor is "unduly hurtful to a particular individual", i.e. the dictator, dictatorships are probably exempt, and most democracies have free speech anyway. WHO NEEDS IT?

If a group of clowns goes into one of your schools and shoots all the teachers and students, can you ban clowns? Something to think about before voting. A clown killed my father. I find them morally reprehensible.

And what you fail to realize is that "excessive degree" or "Impropery" rests on the individual that is hearing/receiving/the butt of the joke. That is not a universal standard, much like "truth" is not a universal standard.

I realize the subjectivity inherent in the wording; I simply believe that that's an issue that needs to be addressed by each individual nation and should not be overly mandated by the UN.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.
Better not much than innappropriate resolutions.


Because, after all, it's not like this is a game or anything. These issues have a very real impact...on...um, yeah.

Vote no on the humor bill. It has no real meaning, because, being that humor is "unduly hurtful to a particular individual", i.e. the dictator, dictatorships are probably exempt, and most democracies have free speech anyway. WHO NEEDS IT?
He right. I'm a dictator, and I would be unduly harmed by a resolution allowing freedom of humor.

Vote no on the humor bill. It has no real meaning, because, being that humor is "unduly hurtful to a particular individual", i.e. the dictator, dictatorships are probably exempt, and most democracies have free speech anyway. WHO NEEDS IT?
He right. I'm a dictator, and I would be unduly harmed by a resolution allowing freedom of humor.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.
Better not much than innappropriate resolutions.


Because, after all, it's not like this is a game or anything. These issues have a very real impact...on...um, yeah.
OOC:This might surprise you, but this game is all about role-playing. That means you have to pretend about stuff, like it really did matter. Which is why we who try and care about the game get irritated with those who don't.

Vote no on the humor bill. It has no real meaning, because, being that humor is "unduly hurtful to a particular individual", i.e. the dictator, dictatorships are probably exempt, and most democracies have free speech anyway. WHO NEEDS IT?
He right. I'm a dictator, and I would be unduly harmed by a resolution allowing freedom of humor.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.
Better not much than innappropriate resolutions.


Because, after all, it's not like this is a game or anything. These issues have a very real impact...on...um, yeah.
OOC:This might surprise you, but this game is all about role-playing. That means you have to pretend about stuff, like it really did matter. Which is why we who try and care about the game get irritated with those who don't.

Gee, point me to where it says in the FAQ that "this game is all about roleplaying" and that you must do so. I really don't care how my style of play affects uppity people like you, but you do have to deal with it. 8)

And what you fail to realize is that "excessive degree" or "Impropery" rests on the individual that is hearing/receiving/the butt of the joke. That is not a universal standard, much like "truth" is not a universal standard.

I realize the subjectivity inherent in the wording; I simply believe that that's an issue that needs to be addressed by each individual nation and should not be overly mandated by the UN.

Indeed, many of the dissenting voices here keep posting htat the wording allows for horrendous abuses of this or that. Gee, a law being abused? NEVER! :lol:

Anyone who is going to abuse those loopholes can already do so in existing legislation. This proposal makes nothing easier for them, and in fact allows more free speech in that it protects humor, as reflected in the global impact of an increase of civil rights to all UN-member states.

I vote for the resolutions I like, against the ones I don't - I make a decision and leave. I see no point in stating my nation's position IC, and I save my debating for the General forum. This may affect my UN nation at the time, but not in any way I disapprove of.

[OOC: Maybe I'm simply not getting something. It seems to me that there are basically two possibilities:

1) You think it's kind of fun to pretend that what goes on in NS is real. This isn't the same as really forgetting that it's a game; it's just a matter of enjoying to pretend. In this case, it seems that, you'd find it worthwhile to debate these important (within the pretense) issues.

2) You just enjoy playing around with your nation, and don't get a kick out of even *pretending* that it's real. But in that case, why vote on U.N. resolutions at all? Why try to impose your views on others if you're not even pretending that they matter? And why let other people impose their views on you? Even if you don't generally object, if you're just in this because it's a fun simulationist toy, don't you want more complete control than that?]

It would seem that I am not alone in this behavior, either.

[OOC: Certainly no debate there. Like I said, it might be me who isn't getting something; your viewpoint seems to be the majority.]

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.
Better not much than innappropriate resolutions.


Because, after all, it's not like this is a game or anything. These issues have a very real impact...on...um, yeah.
OOC:This might surprise you, but this game is all about role-playing. That means you have to pretend about stuff, like it really did matter. Which is why we who try and care about the game get irritated with those who don't.

Gee, point me to where it says in the FAQ that "this game is all about roleplaying" and that you must do so. I really don't care how my style of play affects uppity people like you, but you do have to deal with it. 8)

For one thing, even though it doesn't say anywhere in the FAQ that is is a role-playing thing, it still is. There's nothing anywhere that says that is isn't either. This is just for fun.

What an incredible waste of time and space.
OF course people should be able to be humorous, but there are so many more important issues that actually matter. So what....a government is going to ban the right to laugh? No they are probably going to ban satire etc. which abridges freedom of speech.

How about the UN actually being used for worthwhile, important, and contentious issues. I haven't seen a UN issue in a long time where the vote wasn't completely one sided.

Vote No against this pathetic, ludicrous, and demeaning issue. Why do you think nothing important ever happens? Because no one actually cares about anything important....real issues!

[quo

How about the UN actually being used for worthwhile, important, and contentious issues. I haven't seen a UN issue in a long time where the vote wasn't completely one sided.

Vote No against this pathetic, ludicrous, and demeaning issue. Why do you think nothing important ever happens? Because no one actually cares about anything important....real issues![/quote]


here here! well said.

For one thing, even though it doesn't say anywhere in the FAQ that is is a role-playing thing, it still is. There's nothing anywhere that says that is isn't either. This is just for fun.

The whole point of an open ended game is that there's room for both.

OOC:This might surprise you, but this game is all about role-playing. That means you have to pretend about stuff, like it really did matter. Which is why we who try and care about the game get irritated with those who don't.

First of all, it is possible to care about the game without buying into all that typical inane roll-playing nonsense. Secondly, the irritation cuts both ways, so how about we try to work past it.

Vote No against this pathetic, ludicrous, and demeaning issue. Why do you think nothing important ever happens? Because no one actually cares about anything important....real issues!

I know I've used this line before, but if you crack the pills with your back teeth before you swallow them, more of the medication will reach your bloodstream.

I vote for the resolutions I like, against the ones I don't - I make a decision and leave. I see no point in stating my nation's position IC, and I save my debating for the General forum. This may affect my UN nation at the time, but not in any way I disapprove of.

[OOC: Maybe I'm simply not getting something. It seems to me that there are basically two possibilities:

1) You think it's kind of fun to pretend that what goes on in NS is real. This isn't the same as really forgetting that it's a game; it's just a matter of enjoying to pretend. In this case, it seems that, you'd find it worthwhile to debate these important (within the pretense) issues.

2) You just enjoy playing around with your nation, and don't get a kick out of even *pretending* that it's real. But in that case, why vote on U.N. resolutions at all? Why try to impose your views on others if you're not even pretending that they matter? And why let other people impose their views on you? Even if you don't generally object, if you're just in this because it's a fun simulationist toy, don't you want more complete control than that?]

It would seem that I am not alone in this behavior, either.

[OOC: Certainly no debate there. Like I said, it might be me who isn't getting something; your viewpoint seems to be the majority.]

Neither of your options are correct about my motives, but #2 encomapsses some of it. I keep my nation in mind when voting on resolutions, but I don't go so far as to, say, bicker over whether something whose effect I know will be immediate on passing being "policeable" of "enforceable." As soon as the update happens, it's enforced and done. I'd rather not roleplay inane details that will not reflect in the game one way or another, myself, I just care what it will do to my nation upon its passing (in this case, boost civil rights). I find it ridiculous how some nations big on civil rights whine about how it's going to crush civil rights when the game only has the capacity for the law to have one function upon passing, and that's clearly not what this does:

Freedom of Humor
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Argue "what if" scenarios that cannot happen if you like, I personally only care about the actual effect within the game.

I am pleased to report that, as of this moment, the resolution “Freedom of Humor” (6941 votes in favor) is now more popular than ending slavery (6939 votes in favor).

Who says there’s no humor in this game?

Trevland agrees with Noncercion that this resolution is meaningless and has, therefore, voted against.

This is another example of the UN being undermined by pointless resolutions.

I agree.

As do I.

As do I!

I find it appalling that the members of this institution would be so close minded as to vote against a resolution such as this. In your government there must be people frolicking about daily with flowers thrown at their feet and jokes filling the air. To assume that all people of the world have this same luxury to express themselves is typical of men and their ignorance.

Bill Maher was removed from his show because he used humorous sarcasm against the president during a time of crisis in the United States. Where was your freedom of speech then?... To claim that this is a useless resolution is to ignore the world about you and stick your head in the sand.

In how many nations can humor against one in a high position get you jailed or tortured?... You must have the right to make fun of those in power and those around you.

I absolutely agree. People must "have the right to make fun of those in power," for that's ultimately an important check we have on our nations' leaders' power.

It is criminal that Bill Maher was removed from his show because he used sarcasm against the president during a time of crisis in the US. "Politically Incorrect" made it's bread off "roasting" political leaders, who absolutely need to be kept in their place - especially our current despotic leader, King George... err, I mean George W. Bush.

However as I see it, the issue here ISN'T whether the right to humor needs to be protected, for this right absolutely is included within the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Instead, the issue is this - FREEDOM OF SPEECH & OF EXPRESSION. Those nations that don't afford these unalienable rights to all citizens need to, in order to conform to the UN and basic humanitarian standards. On the other hand, those nations that DO AFFORD these rights to all citizens, MUST ensure that these rights are ACTUALLY protected in practice. That Bill Maher was removed from his show is criminal because CLEARLY his right to free speech was infringed.

(By the way, the only exceptions to free speech & expression that make sense are: 1) Libel and slander (in instances of ACTUAL PROVEN damages to another and 2) In order to protect peoples' lives, i.e. the law against yelling "Fire!" in a theater).

Furthermore: 1) The exceptions to the freedom of humor as stated per the resolution are variable from culture to culture, if not person to person, which renders the resolution completely unenforceable, 2) The exceptions are so vague and otherwise problematic, as stated by other posts, that in actuality this resolution no more protects freedom of humor than before, which by now should be quite clear and 3) The resolution once more, needlessly undermines national sovereignty. Thus, people ought to vote AGAINST this resolution.

(Were this resolution not redundant, the protection of the freedom of humor would be better left to individual nations' governments. They're in a better position to determine culturally what's acceptible humor - per the resolution - and what's not).

Gail Wynand, I found your post quite provoking and considerably more original than most on this issue. Hence I decided to reply back with my thoughts.

Though you and I may disagree regarding this particular resolution, I hope that you'll agree that many people need to actually read and CRITICALLY THINK about the resolutions upon which they vote.

For me this game is a socio-political experiment towards my further education, and thus I tend to take it quite seriously. Unfortunately, I think we're in the minority. From what I see, many others don't put much REAL thought into this game at all, whether they're incapable, due to lack of education, or merely too lazy.

I guess I'll now let this into the maelstorm...

What an incredible waste of time and space.
OF course people should be able to be humorous, but there are so many more important issues that actually matter. So what....a government is going to ban the right to laugh? No they are probably going to ban satire etc. which abridges freedom of speech.

How about the UN actually being used for worthwhile, important, and contentious issues...

Vote No against this pathetic, ludicrous, and demeaning issue. Why do you think nothing important ever happens? Because no one actually cares about anything important....real issues!

Hear, hear! The people who play this game need to consider it more thoughtfully. Pretend, for example that the game's UN was the actual UN. After all, if you've read the rationale for this game, which is a spinoff of the book "Jennifer Government," it's effectively to stimulate political thought and awareness.

Unfortunately, I'm convinced that most Americans (of which I am one) have the critical thinking skills of a young teenager -- especially when it comes to politics or current affairs. This seems evidenced within the realm of NationStates.

Or, maybe it's not a lack of competency. The repugnant state of political affairs within the U.S. could also be explained by sheer complacency - namely, too many people benefitting from the current socio-economic status quo.

However, the masses will get what they deserve. It's the rest of us that end up suffering. But, that's enough for now; try this on for size!

Insert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence here
The Chief Arbiter of Noncoercion finds that both funny and offensive. Once the resolution passes, therefore, the excellent ambassador from The Orion Nebula is forbidden by global law ever to say it again.

Insert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence here
The Chief Arbiter of Noncoercion finds that both funny and offensive. Once the resolution passes, therefore, the excellent ambassador from The Orion Nebula is forbidden by global law ever to say it again.

Ah, but you find it funny at the same time. I doubt you'd have then found it "unduly" offensive, and were not terribly (if not genuinely) hurt by it.

Test

The UN Ambassador for the Commonwealth of Vervun votes for the proposal with full support of Chairman Sondar, the Inner Circle and the Legislature. The right to laughter is a matter of free will, for which all individuals should be entitled to.

We are curious as to how anyone thinks it possible that laughter or humour could be forbidden by law? Humour is an inherent part of the human condition, no more legislatable than breathing. This resolution is a waste of our time and energy (much like the last one), and we are voting no, and we encourage others to do the same. It would be nice to know that UN voting is determined by intelligent thought, and not mindless approval, and voting this down would definitely demonstrate that.

don't be suprised about what can be forbidden or taxed ;).

It mostly would have effect on stand up comedians and stuff, official stuff.
And forbidding it could even effect things as laughting in public. Good stuff for you standard creepy cyberpunk movie. With laught detectors everywhere. And if you even make a gigle 10 cops come the haul you away ;).

Actually normally I don't like to vote for something that has no intelligence. But it happens to agree with my secret agenda ;).

The duly authorized Cheif Arbiter of the Federation of Noncoercion pleads with the honorable representative of The Incorporated States of Neo Communists to reconsider its vote. Besides, there is greater humor in voting no.

Also, Noncoercion would like to point out to Vervun that when governments enumerate certain rights, there can be unintended consequences. If humor is defined as a right, then it can be denied as a right. Even the resolution itself says so.

grin. You are completely right. But as I said, I like the side effects :P

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Christopher Hitchens, Noncoercion believes that the trichotomy enumerated above is false.

A) Allow the possibility of censorship for the greater good, in order to preserve that the principle trust of humor should exist at all. To insure in the legal sanctity of humor, while at the same time allowing nations to act for the benefit of the greater good of their people.
It does not allow the possibility of censorship for the "greater good". I allows the possibility of censorship for morality.

I don’t know if I believe your assertion here that if the terms “greater good” were used that you would find that a better definition. Morality is simply the scales used to measure societal good. Vague, absolutely, and I am sure you understand why it is vague. Could you, in one document, list all the greater goods for society in every situation? Of course not. This allows for the greater good of society, and should be easy to read in the presence of this resolution.




B) To insure the propriety of humor and disregard the greater good of the nation and region involved. All of the un-thought (ill-thought would be to give too much credit I fear) idea of this allowing people to yell fire and or allow murders or some such to use “humor” as a reason for justifiable criminal acts, these people would choose this option.
In fact, the "greater good" as defined in this resolution is the whim of local power-bosses. The community standards clause effectively ties the hands of wider government, for example, from interfering in cases where the locals have declared that gang rape is funny.

You misunderstand me, either on purpose or from not examining what I have written. Perhaps, could you explain how gang rape is for the greater good of society? This is actually already covered by basic human rights acts in place in the UN, and thus would not be allowed.



C) To declare that humor is not a basic human right not deserving to be preserved.
Or (D) to declare that rights do not come from a chief magistrate, but from God or nature.


To suggest that the United Nations should mandate theocratic states is inexcusable, and rather ghastly. I would strictly be against God being part of any such declaration of rights. But even if you do believe this, you would suggest that Man should not defend the right because it comes from God? This would seem to qualify that no basic human rights should be preserved, since they are from God. No, I believe if you think further you will renounce the idea that no human right should be preserved because of this reason. Thus, it makes no sense to use it in this case.


What I'd like to hear from those that support this resolution is this:

What about Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Rights, a resolution already passed by this body, makes this resolution neccessary? Article 2 promises complete freedom of speech. I repeat. Complete freedom of speech, that does include humor.

Humor is not, specifically free speech. There is much debate on the freedom of speech, and to disacknowledge this is not to examine the issue. Some consider capitalism to be “free speech.” As stated, this is a basic human right that does deserve protection.


Humor works best when it is subversive.
Lanny Bruce; George Carlin- they are (or were) funny because they break laws!
If we legitimize humor, we take away its power.

Lenny Bruce is far braver then you seem to be, or then you paint him. Clearly he was braver then I, so no harm intended. To suggest that you can only have rebels if you don’t protect human rights is rather disgusting. By proxy, this would be to suggest that we should ensure slave trade, abhorable human rights, or oppressive governments because otherwise how will we ever have heroes? I would not agree with you, and would not wish to strip away the power of heroes or societal rebels.




Furthermore: 1) The exceptions to the freedom of humor as stated per the resolution are variable from culture to culture, if not person to person, which renders the resolution completely unenforceable, 2) The exceptions are so vague and otherwise problematic, as stated by other posts, that in actuality this resolution no more protects freedom of humor than before, which by now should be quite clear and 3) The resolution once more, needlessly undermines national sovereignty. Thus, people ought to vote AGAINST this resolution.


Ahhh, the point that detractors still insist on ignoring, convenient that it simply slips through the debate. I will ask again, though. If you find the wording too vague you are therefore declaring that you think the UN should spell out what humor is. You would be comfortable with a document telling multiple nations what they should find funny and not funny? You would not allow for cross-cultural differences? That would be a fascism through humor, I am quite surprised so many posters, including you who seems quite intelligent, would be suggesting such a wording.

Okay here is why I voted no

1. It a says that if it makes you happy you can do it. In other words if you want to kill someone you can't be prosecuted! If you want to ANYTHING! this will throw EVERYTHING into Anarchy.

It says you have inalien-sopmething right to persue happiness. However if it contradicts with an other inalien-something then those would cancel each other out.

Luckily enough, that was an opening statement. Not the actual law.

If you would make a law that says, you have to right to persue happiness anyway you like it, we would have the laughter of the century. If the mods would have to follow the UN, the forum would become an utter chaos :P. Grin, and at the same time nobody can complain anymore if mods delete at random :P.

OOC: Thanks you just gave me an idea for a IRL roleplaying game

Noncoercion finds it strange that there is very little debate here, and yet the resolution is running away. In fact, there is almost universal disdain for this resolution from socialists to libertarians. How is it that the resolution is presently passing by nearly a 4 to 1 margin?

Is there not some way for this august body to stop and rescind frivolous resolutions that are railroading their way through the opposition of almost all thoughtful leaders?

Yep it is highly problematic that people can vote without even looking at a discussion. This is the main reasons why those resolutions get passed I think, and also quite, makes us waste our time :P.

The last two discussions about the resolutions where mostly against the resolution. With some darn good arguments. I think more than 50% of the people didn't even bother to look at the arguments.

On a way could say that the UN is a big joke in itself. Luckily this resolution makes that officially not a problem :P.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.Indeed. Perhaps the time has come for resolutions that redefine the role of the UN itself. There should be no votes from ignorance and apathy.

grin, you just named the argument that some people have, though they don't dare to speak it to out loud, against reverendums.

Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

Firstly, Christopher is against people who refer to themselves in the third person, aren’t we Christopher? Now, I don’t even understand this concept you are suggesting… it simply makes no sense. The United States Governmnet allows abortion, it does not mean it owns the fetus’. The govermnet allows freedom of the press, but it does not actually own any press—England is a different story, but not because of the reason you prescribe.


Actually this is a matter of word choicing and law interpretation. What rights have governements in the first place over its citizens. You can make decisisions about what happens to your goods. But where do governments get the right from. One way of explaining it is that indirect they own everything. Except that they give the individual the right to do pretty much with his own stuff what he wants to do. This is not THAT strange. In mediaval europe governments sprung from Nobles who owned all the ground everbody was working on. And sometimes they owned the people to. When nations where formed they where ruled by kings, who originally owned the whole country. You can say that Monarchism was nothing more than a very successful businessman. But on the other hand, he owned the land mostly, not the people. However since the people could not do without the land, as much as a worker nowadays might die of hunger without a job. Though they did not own the people, they could say if you make one joke I am going to kick you of my land. And if nobody else would take you, that meant you where not allowed to be on this planet. In other words, you had to die.

But what I want to say, combining rights and property owner ship is not completely absurd. However you are a couple of milinia to late :P. Governments have already the right to take rights away from you.

If not by law, then by force :P.

And yes, the government so does own all unborn fetuses and owns sort of all the press, because they may make decisions about them. Just like nobles owned all unclaimed land as well, automatically. It is created, there for it belongs to him, until he sells it. Yes, rights where sold in those days.

The nation of PSweeny opposes this resolution. humor is something that can not be made into a law...how can it be illegalized? it can't. this is ludacris. just another way for the people that own this site to push more liberalism into the game.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Christopher Hitchens, Noncoercion believes that the trichotomy enumerated above is false.

A) Allow the possibility of censorship for the greater good, in order to preserve that the principle trust of humor should exist at all. To insure in the legal sanctity of humor, while at the same time allowing nations to act for the benefit of the greater good of their people.
It does not allow the possibility of censorship for the "greater good". I allows the possibility of censorship for morality.

I don’t know if I believe your assertion here that if the terms “greater good” were used that you would find that a better definition. Morality is simply the scales used to measure societal good. Vague, absolutely, and I am sure you understand why it is vague. Could you, in one document, list all the greater goods for society in every situation? Of course not. This allows for the greater good of society, and should be easy to read in the presence of this resolution.
With all due respect to the excellent ambassador from Christopher Hitchens, the humble Chief Arbiter of Noncoercion does not believe that it is his duty to enumerate greaters good, since it was the excellent ambassador and not the humble Chief Arbiter who raised them as germane. Typically, however, when a man speaks of a good that is great, he is speaking of a good that is great for himself. Seldom does a man hail that which would destroy him as either good or great.



B) To insure the propriety of humor and disregard the greater good of the nation and region involved. All of the un-thought (ill-thought would be to give too much credit I fear) idea of this allowing people to yell fire and or allow murders or some such to use “humor” as a reason for justifiable criminal acts, these people would choose this option.
In fact, the "greater good" as defined in this resolution is the whim of local power-bosses. The community standards clause effectively ties the hands of wider government, for example, from interfering in cases where the locals have declared that gang rape is funny.
You misunderstand me, either on purpose or from not examining what I have written. Perhaps, could you explain how gang rape is for the greater good of society? This is actually already covered by basic human rights acts in place in the UN, and thus would not be allowed.

Surely the excellent ambassador does not ascribe to the notion that a disagreement necessarily constitutes a misunderstanding. There is scarcely anything that is not covered by one UN resolution or another, including speech in its many forms — humorous speech, for example. But if the excellent ambassador is skeptical about the dubious nature of some mens' morality, the humble Chief Arbiter would invite him to visit one of Noncoercion's mining communities, where thousands of sexually aroused men covered in coal dust from head to toe and comprising a majority of the community are laughing heartily, and eagerly await passage of this resolution.



C) To declare that humor is not a basic human right not deserving to be preserved.
Or (D) to declare that rights do not come from a chief magistrate, but from God or nature.


To suggest that the United Nations should mandate theocratic states is inexcusable, and rather ghastly. I would strictly be against God being part of any such declaration of rights. But even if you do believe this, you would suggest that Man should not defend the right because it comes from God? This would seem to qualify that no basic human rights should be preserved, since they are from God. No, I believe if you think further you will renounce the idea that no human right should be preserved because of this reason. Thus, it makes no sense to use it in this case.
Perhaps the previous advice of the excellent ambassador about examining what is written is applicable here. The humble Chief Arbiter did not say that rights come from God; he said that rights come from God or nature. The conjuctive clause allows that there might not even be a God.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.


I've voted on many a resolution. Until today, I'd never been to this forum. There are a lot of people who don't roleplay, so why would they come here? Most, myself included, just place a vote and leave. Roleplayed discussions mean nothing to us.

Don't you generally find voting more meaningful when you've had a chance to consider the arguments for or against something? This strikes me as akin to voting in an election without listening to, reading about, or discussing any of the candidates.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[OOC: Yes, I know this is a game, and neither the votes nor the discussions have an impact on anything outside the game. I just find it mysterious that someone might take something seriously enough to vote on it (and let it affect their gaming experience, which is purely optional, since you don't have to be a mamber of the U.N.), but not take it seriously enough to engage in any sort of discussion about whether it's a good idea. Although this is an IC forum, it's one where you can easily do away with most of the trappings of RP if you don't like them. Just don't sign your posts, or talk about which members of your government have which opinions about the proposal.]

Actually if I would improve the game, I would create similar bodies like the UN but region based. With option to join any (and any number of) regions you like or not like. Then you can get together with a group of people you like and do this stuff serious without having to suffer from Gurtharks. It is a simple change, I think the engine can take it without to much problems, but alas. Or whatever catches your fancy.

We in Gurthark are beginning to wonder what percentage of the United Nations in fact reads the United Nations forum. This is the second resolution in a row where the tenor of discussion on the forum has been the exact opposite of the vote.


I've voted on many a resolution. Until today, I'd never been to this forum. There are a lot of people who don't roleplay, so why would they come here? Most, myself included, just place a vote and leave. Roleplayed discussions mean nothing to us.

[OOC: Yes, I know this is a game, and neither the votes nor the discussions have an impact on anything outside the game. I just find it mysterious that someone might take something seriously enough to vote on it (and let it affect their gaming experience, which is purely optional, since you don't have to be a mamber of the U.N.), but not take it seriously enough to engage in any sort of discussion about whether it's a good idea. Although this is an IC forum, it's one where you can easily do away with most of the trappings of RP if you don't like them. Just don't sign your posts, or talk about which members of your government have which opinions about the proposal.]

I vote for the resolutions I like, against the ones I don't - I make a decision and leave. I see no point in stating my nation's position IC, and I save my debating for the General forum. This may affect my UN nation at the time, but not in any way I disapprove of. It would seem that I am not alone in this behavior, either.

grin, not alone. You mean the majority ;)

Actually very little "roleplaying" takes place here. It is mostly just discussion about the sensability of proposals and stuff. You might actually learn something from it. And you never have to get really into the roleplaying stuff. It is just a moment to think for a second. But I guess nobody can force you to think :P.

Actually this is a matter of word choicing and law interpretation. What rights have governements in the first place over its citizens. You can make decisisions about what happens to your goods. But where do governments get the right from. One way of explaining it is that indirect they own everything. Except that they give the individual the right to do pretty much with his own stuff what he wants to do. This is not THAT strange.
It is amazing how close together we are in our understanding on the nature of rights. The de facto owner of a thing is whoever stands in a position to call the shots with respect to it. If government calls the shots, then government has usurped ownership.

Why "usurped"? Because when a man is born, his body and mind are intrinsically his. And whatever property he might acquire from the peaceful and honest use of these accrues to him as well. If ownership of his mind and body and what they have acquired pass to someone else other than he who was born with them, and ownership of them pass without the volition of the original owner, then the passing is a usurpation.

Press Release from the United Socialist States of Kholodsk:

The USSK is officially opposed to the proposed "Right to Humor" legislation. We join with Abysseria in denouncing this overlegislation. In addition to diliatory and absurd suggestions that humor is essential to human nature, this resolution introduces the concept that humor is somehow external to the freedom of expression which has previously been recognized by this agust body. By allowing individual governments to censure humor is against the "accepted moral standards of the community," it paves the way of oppressive regimes to officially ban any form of political dissent with official state views.

The USSK must vote no on this proposal, as we have always fought to give our citizens the greatest possible right to freedom of expression, even if an increase in foul language is the result of such a policy. While our government, should this legislation be enacted, will by no means crack down on humor, we fear for the rest of the world.

Signed,
For the people of the United Socialist States of Kholodsk,
General Secretary Nikolai Fomich Myasnikov

Interesting. However, I don't see how this resolution permits this activity...keeping in place the status quo (which this resolution does) is not the same thing as actively allowing dictator activities.
fail. The UN forum is not commonly frequented. As you can see from this thread, there aren't many older nations such as myself posting.]


I think he is revering to a statement from our country in the first page. What happens is the following. Governments can't crack down on certain forms of rebelious behavior, like they usually could because it is not protected under humor. However because of the loophole they can crack it down with the exceptions. Like making jokes about our governement is a moral. When this becomes necassery, it clouds law. And it becomes a runaway situation in moral decency decline. Because moral indecency is the only way to stop it, it is going to be used for whatever you darn well like. It destroys the pure effects of moral decency, and in the end would create a big mess.

ps. I think this is one of the reasons a lot of older institutions eventually break under there own weight. The intial pure morals and idea's are completely impurified by age.

Afcourse not passing the resolution doesn't stop dictors from doing it now (except for the free speech clause), but bad laws forces people to find ways around them. So instead of making a clear obvious law everybody understands it creates a spin web of loopholes making the whole machine clock up and become unefficient. And in the end worse than before. The law therefore has quite a good chance of backfiring. Instead of increasing human rights, it would decrease human rights in certain dictatorship nations. The writer didn't think it any more through than most of the people who vote for it. (except me ;), I see advantage in seriously damaging other nations and giving me abilities of being subversive in different ways :P. I know it is a bad law, and that is exactly why I support it)

But you are right, these laws make statement, not laws. But even that could cause the problem. Also because normally the statements can be backed up by intervention from the UN with assistance of armies of member nations. Something that is not a possibility in this game :-S. (Though the engine could easily carry it and I know exactly how)

But most importantly what makes me sad, is that this is a good oportunity to think for a second. To realize things by looking at the discussions. To learn something. It makes me sad that a lot of people don't make use of that opportunity.

I only support one part of it. I am glad that the writer of the poroposal at least omitted racial humor and the worst of it. But there are many problems with this proposal. I think the government should only control our absolute rights that involve us interacting with the world and what is provided by the government. They should not control our forms of personal entertainment as long as they do not disturb others. There is no point making a resolution that tells us we have freedom of humor. The government should not get to tell us if we have that freedom or not because that would mean they control it. Like I said they only control the way we use what they provide us with, if they want to make a joke, they can tell us to laugh at it or not. But if they don't give it to us, they don't dictate over it.

Get it in your head, they DO control it. There was just so far no majority in favor of putting jail time to it. And no dictator has so far had enough influences to completely crack it down, or saw any need for it. But on some moments they actually have control over it.

One obvious example is that you are not allowed to discriminate. If I would go over the tv with the worst discriminating jokes I could think of, I would probably IRL get plugged of the air. Just as I get plugged of this forum if I would do it, most likely ;). I am not going to try.

The government controls everything, if they want to, and manage to enforce it. Sorry to scatter your illusion buddy.

Wow, I'm quite amazed at how blatantly wrong this proposal is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for free speech, but this interpretation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is just plain wrong.

When Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", the pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of property, not the pursuit of some abstract emotional state. The government does not have an obligation to make you happy, it has an obligation to protect the rights of private property. At least, that is what our nation was founded upon.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about American history knows that this is so, and can also be quite clearly seen since so much of what Jefferson wrote (and indeed, all the pro-democracy anti-monarchial rhetoric of the time) was based on Locke. And as Locke said, the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty and property" and Jefferson merely sugarcoated "property" by calling it the pursuit of happiness.

if jefferson would see america now he probably get an heart attack :P No kidding he would be I don't know how old :P.

Upon reviewing the text of the proposal, Ganymerica has withdrawn it's yay-vote and rather votes nay on this proposal. It opens up a loophole for tyrannic governments to crack down on dissidents. This resolution cannot pass through the hallowed chamber!

They'll do this if it doesn't pass. Just because it isn't specified in the UN resolution doesn't mean you can't do it yourself.
At the moment, they can't
Allow me to quote the UN's Universal Bill of Rights.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.
So, no UN member nation can restrict what anyone says.

Now, allow me to quote the current resolution at vote.
...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...
So, if this resolution passes, then the courts of member nations can restrict what someone says, if they deem it contrary to moral standards.(Talk show hosts making jokes about sex can get fined, for instance.)
The way it is today, that would not be possible, without actually breaking Article 2.

Of course, this is international law, and it's murky. In an international trial, what would be weighted more? The new or the old resolution? I don't know.

And for those of you who say that Article 2 doesn't protect the freedom of speech as it stands today, would adding another resolution on top of this really help?

I am pretty sure it works like this. A equal legislative body (the same) can add new laws to define older laws, or change them. Therfore we can change the old laws if we would want to. Only to change for example the constitution you need 2/3 because it is a body that is higher than you.

But you noted something beautiful indeed. This aspect is already completely covered. But this new law adds a restriction to free speech. In other words, it restricts the amount of humor that is allowed, instead to increase it :P. Therefor the effect is complety and utterly wrong.

I feel that before whomever the final voice is in determining which possible resolutions are presented to be voted on makes a decision on a resolution, he/she needs to ask the question "Would this resolution be presented before the real UN?"

If we applied that standard, there wouldn't be much to vote on.

Actually there would be. But that standard is uncontrollable. I have in diplomatic games created from the ground up institutions like this, like the UN. They serve a great purpose and become very serious. That is because the fundamental basic is that you can crush an other nation with your armies, making such a body very serious business to avoid that from happening. That is the same way the real UN is based on as well. This is an airbubble. The design of this un is a complete airbubble, and that is why there is a constant stream of funny but ridiculus proposals. This site does not create seriousness, except for maybe the intelligent forum chat ones in a while.

For one thing, even though it doesn't say anywhere in the FAQ that is is a role-playing thing, it still is. There's nothing anywhere that says that is isn't either. This is just for fun.

The whole point of an open ended game is that there's room for both.

OOC:This might surprise you, but this game is all about role-playing. That means you have to pretend about stuff, like it really did matter. Which is why we who try and care about the game get irritated with those who don't.

First of all, it is possible to care about the game without buying into all that typical inane roll-playing nonsense. Secondly, the irritation cuts both ways, so how about we try to work past it.



Yep, the whole point is that there is room for both. Funny how nobody can force you to roleplay, so you are completely protected. But you seem to have no point in completely screwing it up for the others.

The irritation cuts both ways. I would be pleased if you could telegram me what you get out of the game. So far I have seen three options. Have fun building a nation, discuss political idea's sensable, roleplay a nation. I am curious for more. And I am intrested to know how the roleplayers screw it up for you.

This resolution has finally done the trick. As it seems this pointless overlegislation will proceed, and each new piece of legislation being more foolish than the last, Maczimize has chosen to withdraw from the United Nations. The collective bleeding hearts of the UN would bleed my country dry in unnecessary expenses. We can no longer endure such forced levels of charity.

I find it appalling that the members of this institution would be so close minded as to vote against a resolution such as this. In your government there must be people frolicking about daily with flowers thrown at their feet and jokes filling the air. To assume that all people of the world have this same luxury to express themselves is typical of men and their ignorance.

Bill Maher was removed from his show because he used humorous sarcasm against the president during a time of crisis in the United States. Where was your freedom of speech then?... To claim that this is a useless resolution is to ignore the world about you and stick your head in the sand.

In how many nations can humor against one in a high position get you jailed or tortured?... You must have the right to make fun of those in power and those around you.

I absolutely agree. People must "have the right to make fun of those in power," for that's ultimately an important check we have on our nations' leaders' power.

It is criminal that Bill Maher was removed from his show because he used sarcasm against the president during a time of crisis in the US. "Politically Incorrect" made it's bread off "roasting" political leaders, who absolutely need to be kept in their place - especially our current despotic leader, King George... err, I mean George W. Bush.

However as I see it, the issue here ISN'T whether the right to humor needs to be protected, for this right absolutely is included within the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Instead, the issue is this - FREEDOM OF SPEECH & OF EXPRESSION. Those nations that don't afford these unalienable rights to all citizens need to, in order to conform to the UN and basic humanitarian standards. On the other hand, those nations that DO AFFORD these rights to all citizens, MUST ensure that these rights are ACTUALLY protected in practice. That Bill Maher was removed from his show is criminal because CLEARLY his right to free speech was infringed.

(By the way, the only exceptions to free speech & expression that make sense are: 1) Libel and slander (in instances of ACTUAL PROVEN damages to another and 2) In order to protect peoples' lives, i.e. the law against yelling "Fire!" in a theater).

Furthermore: 1) The exceptions to the freedom of humor as stated per the resolution are variable from culture to culture, if not person to person, which renders the resolution completely unenforceable, 2) The exceptions are so vague and otherwise problematic, as stated by other posts, that in actuality this resolution no more protects freedom of humor than before, which by now should be quite clear and 3) The resolution once more, needlessly undermines national sovereignty. Thus, people ought to vote AGAINST this resolution.

(Were this resolution not redundant, the protection of the freedom of humor would be better left to individual nations' governments. They're in a better position to determine culturally what's acceptible humor - per the resolution - and what's not).

Gail Wynand, I found your post quite provoking and considerably more original than most on this issue. Hence I decided to reply back with my thoughts.

Though you and I may disagree regarding this particular resolution, I hope that you'll agree that many people need to actually read and CRITICALLY THINK about the resolutions upon which they vote.

For me this game is a socio-political experiment towards my further education, and thus I tend to take it quite seriously. Unfortunately, I think we're in the minority. From what I see, many others don't put much REAL thought into this game at all, whether they're incapable, due to lack of education, or merely too lazy.

I guess I'll now let this into the maelstorm...

ok, if you want my responds about this. On one side is the freedom of speech especially for people like Bill Maher, who critisis there leaders. If he had a weak contract position that is a bummer. But the freedom of speech is especially to keep people like him, doing what he does. (though I don't know more than what is described here because I am not an american). I do know that you could revolt against your president if you want to because of this. Is stated somewhere too. This was dictatorship behavior, to avoid having the population stopping his decision to go to war.

But on the other hand, it has to be noted that the constitution is completely unrealistic on a way. Allowing freedom of speech in a war situation could be extreemly detrimental for a country and could lead to the doom of a country.

Then again, I wonder if there was actually a war declaration. If there wasn't it was restriction of freedom of speech, to give critisism to the governement, during peace time with the exact purpose of changing the governments mind. Exactly where the constitutional law was intended for. So.....yes.....I think you have a bit of a crisis. (but I note again, I know only from what I read her.).

I do want to attend the americans that the terrorist attack has given people in the government the "support" to take measures that ultimately destroy the principes america was build on. And create exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. Seems Bin Laden was right about the end of america, except that nobody expected it that way. Anyways, I would be wary. Maybe join a organization to remain up to date or something. Anyway good luck.

ps. You might be minority. But I am one of that minority. I had already some good fruits from that experiment thank god :). You might get more sensable discussion if you join a region where those discussions happen. Maybe hop a bit from region to region.

What an incredible waste of time and space.
OF course people should be able to be humorous, but there are so many more important issues that actually matter. So what....a government is going to ban the right to laugh? No they are probably going to ban satire etc. which abridges freedom of speech.

How about the UN actually being used for worthwhile, important, and contentious issues...

Vote No against this pathetic, ludicrous, and demeaning issue. Why do you think nothing important ever happens? Because no one actually cares about anything important....real issues!

Hear, hear! The people who play this game need to consider it more thoughtfully. Pretend, for example that the game's UN was the actual UN. After all, if you've read the rationale for this game, which is a spinoff of the book "Jennifer Government," it's effectively to stimulate political thought and awareness.

Unfortunately, I'm convinced that most Americans (of which I am one) have the critical thinking skills of a young teenager -- especially when it comes to politics or current affairs. This seems evidenced within the realm of NationStates.

Or, maybe it's not a lack of competency. The repugnant state of political affairs within the U.S. could also be explained by sheer complacency - namely, too many people benefitting from the current socio-economic status quo.

However, the masses will get what they deserve. It's the rest of us that end up suffering. But, that's enough for now; try this on for size!

Noam Chomsky supports your view, he even suggest this is done on purpose. Maybe you should look up some stuff about him, if you did not already ;).

I personally support what he says not an basis of what he says, but because my political experitice says that it is possible and not extreemly difficutl, and would work darn good. And if something works darn good, there is a very good change that it actually happens.

I suggest it happens a lot to in a lot of semi free nations in nationstates. Even while there players are not aware of it ;).

Insert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence here
The Chief Arbiter of Noncoercion finds that both funny and offensive. Once the resolution passes, therefore, the excellent ambassador from The Orion Nebula is forbidden by global law ever to say it again.

Ah, but you find it funny at the same time. I doubt you'd have then found it "unduly" offensive, and were not terribly (if not genuinely) hurt by it.

This is exactly what the resolution tries to protect. Because it is non-hurtful. I don't see any insult in having a negativly valued statement about his intelligence. That is because it is sarcasm, and funny ;).Therefore it is not an insult, it is humor. And the humor part cannot be forbidden. And I really would like it if you gave it a shot showing it is insulting, if you take the irony out of it.

Actually this is a matter of word choicing and law interpretation. What rights have governements in the first place over its citizens. You can make decisisions about what happens to your goods. But where do governments get the right from. One way of explaining it is that indirect they own everything. Except that they give the individual the right to do pretty much with his own stuff what he wants to do. This is not THAT strange.
It is amazing how close together we are in our understanding on the nature of rights. The de facto owner of a thing is whoever stands in a position to call the shots with respect to it. If government calls the shots, then government has usurped ownership.

Why "usurped"? Because when a man is born, his body and mind are intrinsically his. And whatever property he might acquire from the peaceful and honest use of these accrues to him as well. If ownership of his mind and body and what they have acquired pass to someone else other than he who was born with them, and ownership of them pass without the volition of the original owner, then the passing is a usurpation.

I defended you, that doesn't mean I completely agree ;).

In our country we state that everything you use you have in loan from a higher organization, until in the end you have it in loan from the state. And the state loans it from god. But since god seldom speaks directly and only through other humans, and we therefore cannot check whether they are actual gods words or just come from his subconscious. Therefore we accept the state as the highest body. Therefore while the state has it in loan from god, it can do with it whatever it thinks is best for that property until god tells other wise. At the same time we realize there is an explanation where god does not exists, but then stands that we loan it from nature, mother earth.

However we only use this description to please other people. We are secretly aware that there is no such think as property, but that there is only the power to make decisions about them, enforced with on the most fundamental, and most unpreferable way, voilence and distruction. All other mental, moral and legeslative, structures are placed above this to avoid this voilence. But in truth, there is no such thing as property. Only the promise of another person that he will not interfere with your handeling of the object or right in question.

"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. And 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."

Has any one taken the time to analyze this statement? We are about to embark on a path to grant to all entities the same right reserved for man. Do not vote for this.

Insert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence here
The Chief Arbiter of Noncoercion finds that both funny and offensive. Once the resolution passes, therefore, the excellent ambassador from The Orion Nebula is forbidden by global law ever to say it again.

Ah, but you find it funny at the same time. I doubt you'd have then found it "unduly" offensive, and were not terribly (if not genuinely) hurt by it.

This is exactly what the resolution tries to protect. Because it is non-hurtful. I don't see any insult in having a negativly valued statement about his intelligence. That is because it is sarcasm, and funny ;).Therefore it is not an insult, it is humor. And the humor part cannot be forbidden. And I really would like it if you gave it a shot showing it is insulting, if you take the irony out of it.
By the standards of our community, the statement is immoral, as we hold ad hominem to be a moral abomination. The statement is therefore in violation of the resolution.

Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?

Who are you, John Locke? Rights are not some mystical attribute of property ownership, they are created in a matrix of juridical agreement and enforcement. Besides, humor IS necessary. I agree that the specific wording is wrong, but the spirit of the resolution is worth voting for. :D

Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?

Who are you, John Locke? Rights are not some mystical attribute of property ownership, they are created in a matrix of juridical agreement and enforcement. Besides, humor IS necessary. I agree that the specific wording is wrong, but the spirit of the resolution is worth voting for. :D

Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?

Who are you, John Locke? Rights are not some mystical attribute of property ownership, they are created in a matrix of juridical agreement and enforcement. Besides, humor IS necessary. I agree that the specific wording is wrong, but the spirit of the resolution is worth voting for. :D
There is nothing mystical about it. A man is born with his original property — his body and mind. With these, he may acquire additional property which accrues to him. Birth is quite natural, not mystical.

The "spirit" of this resolution is that a clique of men knows what's best for all other men. Nothing is more to be feared than someone who knows what's best for you.

"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life" — Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Khalastak militates against this resolution.

What I am finding surprising about this resolution is that it seems a majority of persons who have commented about it have spoken out against it.

Yet, it seems certain that the resolution will pass; this even though many of those who said they would vote for have noted that the resolution is either useless, or poorly formed.

We side with those who note the ineffectiveness of the resolution. We do not believe there is any firm connection between enlightenment and freedoms. Too much freedom of speech may result in instability in a nation, and create new social problems. The best humor, we maintain is that which is shared between friends and families, in the privacy of one's own home, which we consider to be inviolate.

Public humor, on the other hand is not something to which every nation must give free reign.

We had different expectations from the UN when we joined. We thought it would be concerned with resolving conflict, helping displaced persons and refugees, and assisting the less fortunate nations in their struggles. Instead, the UN seems to have become a platform for a small cadre of self-righteous and smug so-called democracies.

We realize this will have no effect on the voting, but Khalastak will leave the UN as a protest, in the event that this resolution passes.

Furthermore: 1) The exceptions to the freedom of humor as stated per the resolution are variable from culture to culture, if not person to person, which renders the resolution completely unenforceable, 2) The exceptions are so vague and otherwise problematic, as stated by other posts, that in actuality this resolution no more protects freedom of humor than before, which by now should be quite clear and 3) The resolution once more, needlessly undermines national sovereignty. Thus, people ought to vote AGAINST this resolution.


Ahhh, the point that detractors still insist on ignoring, convenient that it simply slips through the debate. I will ask again, though. If you find the wording too vague you are therefore declaring that you think the UN should spell out what humor is. You would be comfortable with a document telling multiple nations what they should find funny and not funny? You would not allow for cross-cultural differences? That would be a fascism through humor, I am quite surprised so many posters, including you who seems quite intelligent, would be suggesting such a wording.

For clarification sake, I am against fascism. By stating I believe that the wording of this resolution is too vague, I do not mean that: 1) The UN should spell out what humor is, 2) The resolution should dictate to nations what is and what is not funny, or 3) Cultural differences shouldn't be allowed.

Instead, by my comment that this resolution is too vague - in addition to WHOLLY redundant - I'm merely trying to draw attention to the fact that this resolution achieves no new or actual political purpose. It's somewhat humorous that more people don't realize this. AGAIN, the freedom of humor is fully included within free speech and expression. Nothing more than that should need to be explained.

As for me, I've grown tired of beating this dead horse. Anything else is like so much farting into the wind. Auf Wiedersehen.

Well, glad to see a healthy debate, but let’s think things through a bit shan’t we?



Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

Firstly, Christopher is against people who refer to themselves in the third person, aren’t we Christopher? Now, I don’t even understand this concept you are suggesting… it simply makes no sense. The United States Governmnet allows abortion, it does not mean it owns the fetus’. The govermnet allows freedom of the press, but it does not actually own any press—England is a different story, but not because of the reason you prescribe.



But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?


Simply, people are allowed the freedom to rule themselves. I would hardily object to any UN Resolution that told the UN what is funny and what is not. You would support a more fascist ruling of such a resolution?

As I read it, this would support the UN’s view that nations are allowed to humor, and that outside of egregious rubbish that the world will acknowledge each region’s right to self rule.



When will everyone learn that the UN exists only to keep nations intact, not to push the values of one or a few on the whole?

This is yet again an INVASIVE proposal that wants to tell ME how to run my nation.

The UN should stick to fishing rights in international waters and stay out of my nation!


It would tell you that you have the right to decide what it acceptable humor within your nation... hardly an "invasive" proposal.

This sort of proposal is vital mostly to prevent international disputes or global censorship simply because the right of freedom is being perued.



This resolution appears redundant. Humor is covered under free speech, and it is covered here as well I think it is redundant because humor has already been convered under free speech, we are trying to add it here as well. I am trying to be funny, but notice that I didn't have to have this amendment to attemp to be funny. My right to try to be funny is already covered by an amendment, and trying to protect it again is redundant.

No it is not.

Might as well say why have basic rights protected, because you know, they are basic.

This is just another liberal resolution that says: You can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend me. It's more of that political correctness crap that is going around.

Actually the stereotype is that liberals complain about everything. They would, again stereotypically, say that that humor should be limited as it could offend others. This would therefore be the opposite of political correctness. Sorry, but have you been drinking? I mean, no offence, I have had several during the day and have been able to keep my stereotypes in tact. You might as well say that Hispanics always eat peanuts or jews always prefer cherry Starbursts. Don’t ger me wrong, making up stereotypes that make no sense in RL can be fun, don’t want to discourage you.

our nation ran by several will not support this resolution as we agree with the mass vote that it invades OUR rights to dictate our nations rights and act as a free government.....if your nation wants to follow this and attack nations in such an un-mannered way then so be it..the houses of armandal will no vote for this STUPID nor wanting proposal...and if it passes..well we think the UN should focus on my important issues.... our borders will not trade with you.....

The Dictatorship of Sanban has no bans on humor. The Assembly of Sanban agrees that humor can indeed be a useful tool to many ends. However, allowing humor to reign as a priority over laws is ridiculous. As stated before, humor could simply become an excuse akin to "The devil made me do it."

The Assembly of The Dictatorship of Sanban has informed this representative to change the vote from "Yes" to "No".

"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. And 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."

Has any one taken the time to analyze this statement? We are about to embark on a path to grant to all entities the same right reserved for man. Do not vote for this.

Yes, elfs and dwarfs out, elfs and dwarfs out :P

Well if there is one thing that I don't mind if anything else, including computers, are allowed to have fun.

Though yes, the main thing this proposal is about, the real question. (let us drop all the other objections for a while). Is a queen allowed to make jokes when visiting an other state. Are you allowed to laugh at funerals and hurt other people. Is a soldier excused from combat because he is laughting. This is the real thing the writer of this proposal tried to get a resolution about. This is what he meant. And that is a serious question. Not that it matters, most people braindead voted yet. But I wonder if people have seriously thought at the real question this proposal puts on the table. Is humor always ok?.....or is it not.

ionInsert your own non-hurtful joke about Noncoersion's intelligence hereThis is exactly what the resolution tries to protect. Because it is non-hurtful. I don't see any insult in having a negativly valued statement about his intelligence. That is because it is sarcasm, and funny ;).Therefore it is not an insult, it is humor. And the humor part cannot be forbidden. And I really would like it if you gave it a shot showing it is insulting, if you take the irony out of it.
By the standards of our community, the statement is immoral, as we hold ad hominem to be a moral abomination. The statement is therefore in violation of the resolution.[/quote:a2b8837d90]

Grin, hip hip hoera. Originaly falling under freedom of speech. Now disallowed because somebody found it immoral. There is not even proof that it was hurtful. Gosh it could be suggested that he was highly intelligent. It could be that Noncoersion is just like everybody else. It could be anything. Anything, and nothing that says that in any way Noncoersion should be offendend. In stead it calls for a joke. And jokes are allowed. Always. But Neocoercian so nicely points out that it is not because it is amoral. (thank you noncoercion, I owe you one).

So originally freedom of press. Now disallowed. Grin....by by human rights. A government can now forbid anything from being said, by calling it amoral. Because the new law replaces the old one, just like a new ruling of a judge replaces the old one. :)

Noncoercion opposes the resolution. Rights are an attribute of property ownership, and therefore governments ought not to proscribe rights.

But there is a problem with it aside from the fact that it violates good principle. The resolution allows an exception for "community standards" which effectively nullifies it and makes it not enforceable by the UN. How will the game determine whether Noncoercion's communities have established any standards?

Who are you, John Locke? Rights are not some mystical attribute of property ownership, they are created in a matrix of juridical agreement and enforcement. Besides, humor IS necessary. I agree that the specific wording is wrong, but the spirit of the resolution is worth voting for. :D

Then you are the person I want to respond to to the question (and a why?) that I posed to messages ago

Ad hominem a moral abomination? Hahahahahahahahaha! That's absurd. It is a common fallacy but hardly an abomination of the moral variety. :twisted:

Ad hominem a moral abomination? Hahahahahahahahaha! That's absurd. It is a common fallacy but hardly an abomination of the moral variety. :twisted:

All of those who argues against this resolution, for fear that this resolution would be used to insure, rather then to prevent, civil rights abuses... if you come up with a single good example of this resolution being abused, post on this topic. I dar say this topic shall stay dead, and you will likely be proved to be so-over reacting so as to have attempted inacitvity for fear of doing.... something.

Genetlemen, do not abondon the power of debate, though I fear some may be choosing to stamp rather then to lead.