NationStates Jolt Archive

On behalf of the current parliament of The Annexed States of Kryozerkia and Prime Minister Zekia, our UN representative and regional delegate, Lady Zeke McKinely, has put this proposal before the UN delegation.

She bides that if your country is the delegate and UN rep for your region that you sanction this proposal.

It has posted here in the hopes of getting the attention of many.


Free the Arts

Description: Too often there are people who are not enlightened and are uncultured and confined to the restrictions of their little rose-glass coloured world and are not aware of the beauty around them in the form of creative art, be it dance, drama, music, visual art and/or literature. There is also the inverse of this, which is there are people seek to censor and restriction the arts and the distribution thereof.

Wherein freedom of expression is a right;

Wherein art is a form of expression;

Wherein censorship infringes upon the right to freedom of art and expression;

Whereas art has always been around as a form of expression and communication, we hereby propose that all art shall henceforth be freed from the vice of oppression.

1. No one person shall be censored because their ideas are not in tune with the cultural and/or religious mentality of a certain group.

2. No one person shall be denied the right to freedom of expression through art as a media.

3. No one person shall be expected to censor his or her art because it is not 'appropriate'.

4. No one shall censor art; they may rate it and decide if it is appropriate for younger audiences under the legal age of universal sufferage.

5. No one government shall stifle the arts; they shall provide a small portion of the government's budget to the growth of the arts and shall support the industry.

It's too left wing for me not to support.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

1. No one person shall be censored because their ideas are not in tune with the cultural and/or religious mentality of a certain group.
So your saying if someone draws or preforms, "cop-killing", they should not be censored? Your saying, that becuase their ideas on "cop-killing", is an "art", they should not be censored?
3. No one person shall be expected to censor his or her art because it is not 'appropriate'.Define your definition of 'appropriate'. What about deplicting somthing about murder or sex?
4. No one shall censor art; they may rate it and decide if it is appropriate for younger audiences under the legal age of universal sufferage.You contradict your own statement. If you give a piece of art an adult-rating and kids cannot view it, that is censoring.
5. No one government shall stifle the arts; they shall provide a small portion of the government's budget to the growth of the arts and shall support the industry.This is absurd. Art is a hobby and to some (if you are really good) a career. Why should government funding (even if it is a small bit) be spent in Art and its "industry", when it would be better used in National Education and Wellfare.
The Rogue Nation of Kodic frowns upon this proposal, and will not support it.

So your saying if someone draws or preforms, "cop-killing", they should not be censored? Your saying, that becuase their ideas on "cop-killing", is an "art", they should not be censored?

The average painter, writer, or rapper is not going to go out and shoot a cop. If you look at statistics, I very much doubt you'll see a significant correlation between art about killing cops and violent deaths in the police force. In short: I do not believe it poses any material danger, so I see no reason to outlaw it.

Define your definition of 'appropriate'. What about deplicting somthing about murder or sex?

That's exactly what he means, I think -- those things won't be censored.

You contradict your own statement. If you give a piece of art an adult-rating and kids cannot view it, that is censoring.

After a fashion, yes, but you'll probably admit that there's a difference between keeping something away from children and banning it outright.

This is absurd. Art is a hobby and to some (if you are really good) a career. Why should government funding (even if it is a small bit) be spent in Art and its "industry", when it would be better used in National Education and Wellfare.

I agree that the government should not significantly subsidize the arts. Doing so can actually interfere with an artist's freedom (as under Stalin in the USSR, for an extreme example), and I prefer the capitalist path whenever it is possible. I'm not seeing a justification to force this aspect of the decision onto the members of the UN.

Some would argue that this is redundant (or perhaps subordinate) to freedom of speech, but I support the meaning of the proposal if only so that the definitions of "speech" and "expression" might be properly expanded.

Art shouldn't be suppressed. I don't know why copkilling would be a problem. It isn't a common artform.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Wouldn't this also make snuff films perfectly legal?
I think there should be some restrictions on art. Namly that is doesn't harm, maim or kill anyone in actuallity nor deprive them of property(where ownership of property is appliciable). Art including descriptions of mock harmings, maimings, or killings is just fine though.

I am against censorship in nearly all situations, but for the government to sponsor what 98% of its "unenlightened" (as you call them) citizentry dissaprove of would be a travesty. Reagani wholeheartly disapproves of this socialist drivel. whats next, letting pedofiles visit day care centers so they can "express their love"?

I think you need a little clarification on what is or can be considered art. I don't think, rape, murder, porn, and so on can really be considered art.

So...I vote nope!

That's true. A more carefully worded version of "unless it infringes upon the rights or privieges of another individual or group" would probably be a good addition. The trick is getting it to the point where you can't call stealing someone's car art, but those things which should be protected as expression are, and that's a concept that is very difficult to successfully legislate.

we would not favor legalizing the causing of harm in the name of art
but we do already as a matter of course oppose all forms of censorship
INCLUDING 'rating' systems when used as a legal bias as to who may
or may not view what.
we also do not see art as a spectator sport but as a natural function
of sentience. if anything the very root and source of sentience.
we have no objection to maditory warning lables on anything that might encourage the causing of harm
we do not see depictions of sexual activity as belonging in the catigory of things that encourage the causing of harm
at all
period
what we do encourage the discouraging (though NOT by oughtright censorship) of is the romantacizing and rewarding of aggressiveness
especialy gratuitous aggressiveness of gratuitous pseudoconventionality

we are thus 100% in favor of what we feel and hope is the spirit of the intent of this proposal

=^^=
.../\...

Everybody has opinions.

Everybody should be able to express those opinions in whatever way they want to.

Therefore, Xawadiland supports this proposal.

I agree with Sozo. I was just using cop-killing as a example. To some sick individuals they think that killing (ingeneral) is an art.

We support this resolution. Everyone should be allowed to express their ideas in whatever medium they wish, so long of course that it does not physically harm other people.

Art is one of the greatest measures history remembers civlizations by.

We have approved this resolution and will vote for it when it reaches the floor.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

We are in agreement until we get down to item five.

We have no desire to subsidize someone's exersise of free speech.

At the moment when we collectively through our government begin funding art, it ceases to become individual expression and becomes a paid contract over which we have a right to maintain some control.

Exercise your rights outside our budget, go right ahead.