NationStates Jolt Archive

DRAFT THREE UP FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION

I did a little altering and came up with this,

“The Sanctity of Mass Media”

Category: Human Rights, at this time. May yet become Further. Democ.
Strength: Strong, due to the reach of Mass Media.

Aware, that some nation states within the United Nations membership may intend in the future or currently to reduce or dilute the impact of previous passed proposals by using the power of United Nations and thus international law.

Specifically, with the intent of reducing or diluting within those passed proposals those components that protected freedom of speech, and the right to equality for all.

Therefore, in the interests of the continued maintenance of the level of human and civil rights, and such freedoms as due to all persons who are citizens of United Nations member nation states, The Rep of Komokom respectfully calls upon the members of the United Nations to now, and forever more,

Allowing for the possibilities of future game mechanics issues and Moderation or otherwise Administrative interference where due and found to be required by said staff of N.S. and the aforementioned game mechanics,

Enshrine, in International Law:

The idea that the public mass media is electronic, radio, television, film, and print, privately or publicly owned,

And such mass media be able to actively use their right of free speech, as protected by past proposals for any afore-mentioned citizen.

Also, That it may do so in an unrestrained fashion, subject only to sovereign law of the nations in which they are consumed, provided any sovereign law does not contradict this proposal and any previously passed acts or future acts, those which be international law, which would limit said rights to be instituted with the passing of this act.

Furthermore, In the event a sovereign/international law contradiction event happens,

Then by the natural act of current game mechanics, this proposal would over-ride said sovereign laws, doing so in the interests of the human rights of equality and free speech for the citizens of the sovereign nations, which are an acknowledged protectorate via this organization.

Thus, it is to be considered with the passing of this proposal, that the aforementioned ideas in this proposal are passed, and will thus engage the said ideas as international law, and also re-enforce any previous passed international law, which would aid the sanctity of human rights, in the form of freedom of speech and equality for all peoples.

So ends my proposal, and all I do say further is it is always right to do that which I right, and I hope any government of a member nation who deserves the respect of their people would agree and vote yes for this proposal. I do greatly thank all of you for your time and consideration.

- The Rep of Komokom.

...

Any takers? :wink:

Someone has to do the spag pedantry...
in member nations by reining in the power of the public media
Allowing for the possibilities of future game mechanics issues and Moderation or otherwise Administrative interference

We like this proposal. We'd appreciate it if the section about what happens when this ruling and national laws come into conflict was made a bit clearer, though. This also relies a lot on the content of previous acts, since it effectively forbids further universal media legislation; in particular, we'd like to check that there are already resolutions extant that universally forbid transmission of child pornography and punishment of prisoners of war.

We'd also like
subject only to sovereign law of the nations they are based in
to be changed to
subject only to sovereign law of the nations in which they are consumed

If this isn't made, cable or satellite companies based in a foreign country could sublet to residents of individual states and completely escape censorship.

The idea that public media is a collection of media, known as currently, but not limited to word of mouth, electronic based or printed form information services, privately or publicly owned

Not to be the stickler, but the definition of media is inaccurate. Media involves some kind of vehicle by which a message is carried from one place to another. Word of mouth has always been considered non-media, because I can't say something now and then pass it along two hours later. Its gone. In the air.

Furthremore, if this bill was meant to affect mass media, its important to say that. Media can be anything carrying a message, but mass media requires a vehicle, as previously noted. At the point where you say "media" it technically allows the government to regulate e-mail, telegrams, etc., and thats probably not what we had in mind. Mass media is electronic, radio, television, film, and print (newspapers/magazines).

Just some clarifications.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Meeep.

Now I know why I put off posting proposals... :wink:

Constructive stuff has been noted, I will apply the points made here, well, almost all of them, into my next draft, comig soon... :)

Did I mention I wrote it in under 15 minutes with no other research, so naturally I assumed to wake up today and find a collection of citations... lol. I'll get onto it some time today, draft two should be up in the air for general viewing early tonight... Barring angry server manifestations.

Mean-while, BUMP.

- The Rep of Komokom.

So the translation into English would read: "Media are entitled to express whatever views they want because they have freedom of speech"?

If so, it's a good proposal.

What do you mean, "translation into english?" (Glare)

:)

Yeah, something like that though. I think, wait on people, I'm re-drafting here!

- The Rep of Komokom.

Never mind... draft two is up and... stuff. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I agree with Enodia, you wasted all that space saying nothing (but saying it eloquently) I'm sure it got the morons of the UN to scratch their heads (even some of the smart ones like me...only not because I haven't rejoined yet)

You summed that up I admit, some very ironic irony being I was doing my darn'd best to be eloquent and, well, big worded I suppose, and in the end the biggest brains here took moments longer then applicable to decipher it, grrr, hence the second draftyfication.

I doubt I made them scratch their heads, more like explode... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Looking good. I'd probably be inclined to keep this one as a Human Rights proposal, rather than Furtherment of Democracy - since it relates more to freedom of speech (on my reading) than a democratic freedoms concern. Also, the italicised section about the Mods and Admin is superfluous to concerns - we interfere in anything we want to whether or not the proposals allow us to :P

Yes Enodia, I do know that, I considered it to be more of a lip service to those who know not of thine mighty power... :wink:

Also, I've doen some minor alterations, here we go, draft three is now running hot. Posting in T minus...

- The Rep of Komokom.

I recognise this, I do believe I just approved it on page 15.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

ahh... wow. for the more stupid UN members like myself who find themselves easily confused and afraid of big words... is there a summary? what I understood looked good, but I'm a little slow...

This is great, please, let us know when it makes the proposal list.

Aye laddie, once I got it down to a single proposal frae the slightly blurred double one...

Joccia's all fer free speech and un-censored media, My only worry is the bias of said media.

There is an enormous amount of power to be used/abused, and I think the old axiom works fer the media as well - Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

Various writers have portrayed 'rule by media' so I dinnae think I need to explain further.

In such august bodies as the BBC, minority/current 'pc' fashion groups are making themselves heard as if they were the majority.

Example: every time the 'foxhunting' question comes up on the news, they show pictures of cute defenseless fox-cubs rather than the reality of a semi-rabid vermin slaughtering chickens.

This may be a touchy point and let me say that I'm playing devil's advocate, but it is a perfect illustration of bias and misuse of power.

We cannot trust the media any more than we can trust Government!

If mass-media becomes totally un-controlled, it also assumes absolute power...

...
Hmmm, yes, coming back this morning, well, midday here, and me having slept in a fair bitty, :wink: I realise my last post to this forum must have died in transit, and I closed the window before reading the error...
What I was to say was after the positive feed back and running it past Enodia and getting what I think amounted to a go, I went and simplified it a bit (Though maybe not enough) then stuck it into the proposals submit thingy, and, well, started telegramming...
...
Hmmm, oh well, at least the telegram replies so far have been okay, and other-wise support goodly.
...
HEY, DELEGATES, PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO ENDORSE MINE PROPOSITION TO THE U.N. FOR THE GOOD OF ALL...
zzz...
I'm still very tired... The coffee just wore off... Is it midday already? Time for bed...
OH! And thank you pedantics above :wink: , as well as Enodia for their time, and all others for their posts and feed back, now lets see if I get enough endorsie's before vote closing time... :?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Be right back, have to address some other threads here, then disappear for an hour or two, reality calls, grrr.

So let us get this straight... you want to make sure that whoever is currently running the "mass media" be able to say whatever they want - and by extension to not say anything they don't want, right?

Where exactly does that leave the rest of us? If we aren't actively a part of this "mass media", what say do we have over what we are shown?

This seems like a rather thinly veiled corporate takeover. By giving complete "freedom" of what is broadcast to the broadcasters themselves you are making them nations in and of themselves. Now "channel 2" will be a political power on par with the state. Unless and until the people gain the ability to elect the programming directors of channel 2 we cannot see how this can do anything other than handicap the democratic process.

The media is a dangerous beast. Its ability to report the truth is important - but it should not be allowed to become a government in its own right. Allowing corporations to have the power of nations is by definition entrusting your future into non-democratic institutions. And that frightens us. It should frighten you as well.

Good night, everyone.

Unless I am misreading the proposal (which is, indeed, possible), then I believe it only refers to public mass media... Presuming that Channel 2 is a Corporately-owned television channel, it would not be included as the public has no say in what gets broadcast (or does not get broadcast).

Then again, the distinction could be Nationally based as Gethamane's "private" media is run by the government at a local level, which is run by the population.

Anyway, the point being that the "broadcasters" would be the public, which could indeed make them into a nation in and of themselves... making "Channel 2" (now presuming it to be a public channel) a political power when it comes to an election.

OOC: That may have rambled and made no sense. I'm tired.

Dammit! You people still have trouble reading it?

(Sound of hair being torn out)

Ah well, but yes, it essance its meant to be for the public media specifically... oh my non-existing-diety's did I leave that out of the final submittion???

(Sound of running, followed quickly by sound of breaking glass and a scream, soon followed by a distinct thump)

* Looks at clock...

I am now too tired to care. Ah well, I'll consider this point, and also will consider this my test proposal, meaning if it don't pass, eh, re-write, and if it does, sound of cheering. And lets face it, I'll not make all you happy, but at least I got this pretty right for a fairly off the cuff counter proposal...

- The Rep of Komokom.

And such mass media be able to actively use their right of free speech, as protected by past proposals for any afore-mentioned citizen.[/b]

Also, That it may do so in an unrestrained fashion, subject only to sovereign law of the nations in which they are consumed, provided any sovereign law does not contradict this proposal


Putting aside the fact that our nation allows very limited freedom of speach, and no rights to it, for a moment (for which we vehemently oppose this resolution), we're curious at least about this part.

They can use their freedom of speech, unless it contradicts our laws. But if our laws contradict the resolution, then they get to use their freedom of speech again?

Close, but no cigar,

It means, they can practice their right to free speech,

but not if you've laws restricting what they can say,

but if you've laws which limit their right to free speech,

and these laws of yours violate the laws of *previously passed* resolutions regarding free speech and equality,

then your laws will be over-rided by the previously passed resolutions,

which is a given, with the way game mechanics work.

- The Rep of Komokom.

Hmm. Fair enough then. You had me scared there.

So....

Publically owned outlets of mass media, which are by definition owned and controlled by the government - would now be allowed to have the complete freedom to say anything the government allowed or required them to say without fear of retribution from the government for having done so?

Excuse me? What difference does that make?

Good night, everyone.

ooc: No they're not.

The BBC is the paradigm of a public mass media outlet: it's run by government mandate and government funding, but it is very much independent of the government. Indeed, publicly-owned media are often the most critical of government, because they have the public interest at heart rather than profits.

(Oh, for a strong publicly-owned media in the US. It would make me so very, very happy).

I tghink we are totally having a problem with the definition of "government".

You seem to be talking about the "government" in terms like "the new government" in which the term is limited to the current "administration". We, however, are talking about a much broader definition of "government" - one which includes the mail men, the fire fighters, the teachers, and everyone else who is hired and fired by the public coffers.

What you really seem to be asking for is for the ensurement of a system of "checks and balances" - in which part of the government is entrusted with informing the public as to what is going on - including whatever it is that the rest of the branches of government is doing. This is a laudable system, and one similar to the one already in place in Kappastan, but we don't think that simply demanding "freedoms" for this branch of government is going to help anything or even make sense when not applied to a nation with such an institution in place. And of course the vast majority of nations with such a system won't even notice the effects of this provision.

Allowing special interests to financially control the mass media is obviously going to give a very slanted version of news coverage. The people most able to privately fund such endeavors are by definition thieves. However, what the media needs is not "freedom of the press" - that statement is pretty much meaningless. What they need is full recognition as a branch of the government, and powers of inquiry appropriate to that position.

-Frank

ooc: No they're not.

The BBC is the paradigm of a public mass media outlet: it's run by government mandate and government funding, but it is very much independent of the government. Indeed, publicly-owned media are often the most critical of government, because they have the public interest at heart rather than profits.

(Oh, for a strong publicly-owned media in the US. It would make me so very, very happy).

The BBC becomes more minority controlled every day, more anti-government, more biased toward 'rabid middle England' and less of an independent window on the world. The Loonies are running the Assylum and although the BBC is publicly owned we, the public have no say in who controls programming and content. We cannot even protest by refusing to pay the mandatory license fee.