NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you all think?

Commissioner Pravin Lal wrote in the Declaration of Rights, "As Americans have learned so painfully in Earth’s last century, the free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lost their grip on information soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has already begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

To that effect, be it resolved by the United Nations here that:

No nation, nor the United Nations, shall restrict the right of individuals to nonviolently express ideas, in speech or press, except in cases of clear and imminent public danger, or when such expression would violate standing intellectual property laws.

The corollary to such a right is that individuals must also have the right to remain silent, as well as the right to abridge or outright waive their right to free expression through contract with other individuals.

Too much information could be a bad thing...What happens if the general populace hears every conspiracy theory, every threat from some group of terrorists, etc. They could go paranoid, or become xenophobic, etc. Sometimes it is best to limit the flow of information....and the problem, of course, is "How much is too much?"

That's a decision better left to the people than to the government. If you don't want to hear it, you don't have to listen.

The nation of Chikyota would support this proposal, but for this statement.
except in cases of clear and imminent public danger
We understand it's inclusion, but fear that since it is a vague statement, it could be stretched nad interpreted to suit the needs of the government in power.

what about if their free speech impinges upon the safety or the civil rights of others?

what about if their free speech impinges upon the safety or the civil rights of others?

Safety = Clear and imminent danger

As for civil rights, I don't know how speech could violate someone's civil rights. If you mean hate speech, that's perfectly legal.

That's a decision better left to the people than to the government. If you don't want to hear it, you don't have to listen.

Then leave the room. Other people still have the right to talk.

My belief is that freedom of information is crucial. However, there should be a system of regulation that watches what information is being presented. Interference should only occur when said information either infringes on civil rights (read: evangelism, racial superiority, etc.) or presents a national/worldwide danger (leaking secrets). Otherwise, let it go, let it be accessed. That is my opinion on this "Freedom of Information Act". I'm for it.

Why do you call it the Freedom of Information Act? Shouldn't it be the Freedom of Speech Act? Freedom of information would be more like the government not withholding certain information from the people.

My belief is that freedom of information is crucial. However, there should be a system of regulation that watches what information is being presented. Interference should only occur when said information either infringes on civil rights (read: evangelism, racial superiority, etc.) or presents a national/worldwide danger (leaking secrets). Otherwise, let it go, let it be accessed. That is my opinion on this "Freedom of Information Act". I'm for it.

On the racism thing, suppressing radicals only encourages them - people think "well if this idea is so dangerous that the government has to ban it, then there must be something special about it" or something along those lines. The best way to deal with racists etc. is to let them spout rubbish, then get them to attempt to justify what they're saying, so that everyone can see how baseless and stupid their ideas are.

Catholic Europe is very unsure as to whether people should be granted freedom of information or not. If we do, that is a good thing but it could allow evil ideologies to spread etc. If we don't, then we are effectively a police state and where do we stop?

My belief is that freedom of information is crucial. However, there should be a system of regulation that watches what information is being presented. Interference should only occur when said information either infringes on civil rights (read: evangelism, racial superiority, etc.) or presents a national/worldwide danger (leaking secrets). Otherwise, let it go, let it be accessed. That is my opinion on this "Freedom of Information Act". I'm for it.

On the racism thing, suppressing radicals only encourages them - people think "well if this idea is so dangerous that the government has to ban it, then there must be something special about it" or something along those lines. The best way to deal with racists etc. is to let them spout rubbish, then get them to attempt to justify what they're saying, so that everyone can see how baseless and stupid their ideas are.

Exactly. Remember that flag burning case a decade ago in the US? The Supreme Court basically ignored it, said flag burning is perfectly okay under the COnstitution, and the whole incident went away by itself after a few months. Putting a ban on racism only convinces people that the government fears it.

And CE, the trouble arises with defining what is evil. The best thing to do is let society work it out in the marketplace of ideas.

What this should be called is the Freedom of Speech Act, which has a completely different meaning. In the end, you are just trying to push nations toward democracy, which they might not want to do, and you have no right to impose it on them. If a dictator wants to imprison all dissenters, the UN has no right interfering, at least in NationStates, where the whole point is that people make their own government. I do not advocate cruel dictatorships, but I am not about to go into another nation to overthrow theirs.
In addition, there would have to be some limits on this, beyond just "in clear and imminent danger." People should not be allowed to run into a crowded theater and scream "FIRE!" as this would cause chaos and could eventually lead to a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. And should someone be able to use profanity on public television and radio broadcasting? We may not think it matters, but it could have a negative effect on children. It's a matter of censorship, which can be a good thing on a small level. Also, should a kindergarten teacher be allowed to teach kids that racism is good? There have to be some limits on what someone can and cannot say. The proposal is too vague, like every other proposal that comes up.

We agree. When people under the oppression of government read of anarchism, they will learn how to undermine their oppressor and why they should.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I stand by this proposal, it promotes to propagation of data of all types in a sensible manner with sensible "restrictions" and so helps the increase of the reduction of ignorance an promotes understanding of the fellow man, it pulls down the walls of silence and gives the people the right to govern themselves, as in such a way to make them think for themselves, to be self aware, it is a proposal that contain the essance, the life blood, of democracy,

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Potter Stewart

God bless, and good night.

A Rep of Komokom.

I simply believe that everybody should have total free speech. No matter how bad a crisis is, if a government stops people expressing their opinions, it's oppression.

Xawadiland:
Would you rather have "Oppression" or chaos and many dissatisfied citizens protesting in the streets, disturbing the normal flow of life? Sometimes it is best to keep people in the dark, because there is nothing they can do about some problems anyway, and if they know about them, they will just worry and do stupid things.

While complete freedom of speech, and information sounds like a "nice" thing to have, and something people think they want...what would you do if you knew of every single conspiracy plot the government was told/thinking of, every single terrorist threat, every single scandal that the government was trying to keep quiet (if your government is not held to the highest moral standards)? I'm assuming most people, being weak, would run around in a panic, or become paranoid, or simply refuse to go outside of their basement. At the very least, the basic structure of life will be very instable, and now what have you gained? I'm sure the people will thank you for sharing information.

A strong government cannot always be "nice" since this is most often unpragmatic and results in a worse situation. If you don't have the stomach to make the tough decisions, perhaps you should resign.
-Kusanagi Noakusei

People would only react like that if they had been previously kept in the dark...and they would soon get used to it and adapt. It's what humans do. Life would carry on as normal, people would just be more aware of their surroundings.

What would the difference be, if you withheld information from the masses, or if you told them, then they adapted and went back to relatively normal life... They would either not pay much attention at all to these threats, or they would never know. Truthfully, I don't see any difference, except for a period of chaos in-between the stages. Like I said, I am a dictator to provide stability for my nation, and I don't think plunging my realm into chaos for even a short while (which is not guaranteed to be short) is in my best interests, nor my nation's.
Do you think the people would even be that much happier if you told them every single thing that was going on? If your government officials are unfaithful, do you think they want to know that stuff? If so, your people should probably focus on more important things, in my opinion. I ensure that my people are productive when they are part of the work force, and making them into gossipmongers or tabloid-watchers is not something I want to do.

-Kusanagi Noakusei

Catholic Europe is very unsure as to whether people should be granted freedom of information or not. If we do, that is a good thing but it could allow evil ideologies to spread etc.
Too late! You're already controlled by an evil ideology.

What would the difference be, if you withheld information from the masses, or if you told them, then they adapted and went back to relatively normal life... They would either not pay much attention at all to these threats, or they would never know. Truthfully, I don't see any difference, except for a period of chaos in-between the stages. Like I said, I am a dictator to provide stability for my nation, and I don't think plunging my realm into chaos for even a short while (which is not guaranteed to be short) is in my best interests, nor my nation's.
Do you think the people would even be that much happier if you told them every single thing that was going on? If your government officials are unfaithful, do you think they want to know that stuff? If so, your people should probably focus on more important things, in my opinion. I ensure that my people are productive when they are part of the work force, and making them into gossipmongers or tabloid-watchers is not something I want to do.

-Kusanagi Noakusei

I beleive that people would actually be happier if thy knew all about what was going on. It would save lots of hassle, as the government wouldn't have to 'Silence' people who knew too much. People don't like being lied too - if it gets out to the press that the governemtn have been lying, there will be a huge scandal and civil disorder. If people know everything anyway, then this would not be a danger.