NationStates Jolt Archive

Offensive Language Control
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
*
Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant Proposed by: Moozimoo
Description: Noticing that offensive and generally bad language is becoming more common among the population, as a result of TV programs and films, we propose that:

HIGHER penalties for offensive language (i.e. racist, sexist, etc) are introduced.

LAWS forcing television and film companies to cut down on swearing and offensive language should be introduced.

TO introduce compulsory censorship of all television programs between the hours of 5.30am and 9.30pm.

CENSORSHIP of offensive gestures should be encouraged

COUNTRIES have the right to decide which words and gestures will be censored.

PEOPLE should be encouraged to frown upon others who swear

These proposals should reduce the volume of swearing used daily and has the aim of eliminating swearing and offensive language within the next 50 years.

Approvals: 13

What is wrong with it/ how can I improve it/ is this the correct way to be talking about it???

What is wrong with it?

The idea. Number one, there are far more pressing problems for local national and international law-making bodies to be dealing with than swearing, no matter how copious. Number two, this UN is fairly liberal, and most of us don't take kindly to attempts to limit civil liberties, which is what any "moral decency" proposal does. Number three, more specifically, I would guess that many if not most UN nations don't believe that the government should be punishing people for swearing, except in some cases where the swearing is broadcast/published/highly public.

Krygillia is strongly against this. In any free society, free speech is essential; people should be allowed to speak their minds. If we were to throw people in jail for cursing, then basically everyone alive would be in a jail cell. Racist and sexist ideas are eradicated through education and free debate, not through the use of "thought police."

-His Imperial Majesty the Most Revered One of Krygillia

A capitalized word at the beginning of a sentence does not a resolutional clause make. In other words, you could start by using proper UN terminology and structure. It certainly won't make people like your idea, but they'll have less to yell at you for when you propose it.

But, on to more substantive argumentation.

The people of Sophista tend to get a little antsy any time we see the words 'compulsory' and 'censorship' in the same sentence without some kind of negating modifier. Free speech, even if deemed unacceptable by a vocal minority, is the cornerstone of any democratic society, and to silence a voice simply because you don't agree with its message goes against the fundamental principles of liberty.

In short, we're not interested.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Lunacy by a prissy minority. True, there are contexts in which swearing is inappropriate, but we find that society does quite a good job of delineating these contexts without us needing to stick our oar in.

Apart from anything else, this is completely inappropriate for a UN proposal. We grow increasingly tired of people making UN proposals because the issue doesn't exist as a local issue, or just to make everyone aware of their own stance.

What would there be left of tv if you took out the offensive stuff?? :lol:

While I partially agree, this is an issue that should be left up to the individual nations.

What? Freedom of speech? We don't need freedom of speech! Just look at how efficient the German government became once a proper dictator took control and punished those who disrespected the government or offended the people!

I don't like the idea. The people of Arkanstan hold free speech very dearly, and we can decide ourselves what is good and what is bad.

In the actual writing of it, it is a little unclear on what exactly "obsene" is. All nations most likely have a different view of this. Plus, what should the punishments be, or should it just be up to the government to do as it sees fit? If so, you need to include that.

The Democratic Republic of Cyclopea strongly condemns this proposal to the extent that under the unlikely event that it would be sanctioned and accepted by the UN, we would be forced to resign.

After looking back over your proposal, I realise another problem. The first operative clause calls for higher penalties for offensive language, which seems to assume that all nations already have penalties in place. Many of us, including _Myopia_, do not.

This is a slippery slope. If you ban one type of speech, such as swearing, what's to say you can't ban another, such as criticism of the government?

People must always be allowed to voice their opinion, even if that opinion is that "Jim's a stupid f***".

thank you!

The thing that really gets me is this:

COUNTRIES have the right to decide which words and gestures will be censored.

You have effectively declared that countries can ignore this resolution by deciding that there are no offensive words or gestures. Not only that, some countries could declare that simply speaking the name of an opposition party is punishable by death.

We cannot support this.

Our educational system prides itself on being at the forefront of developing new naughty words on a regular basis. Indeed, the english department at Capitol's university is dominated by the naughty words project.

Thus we cannot support it

The thing that really gets me is this:

COUNTRIES have the right to decide which words and gestures will be censored.

You have effectively declared that countries can ignore this resolution by deciding that there are no offensive words or gestures. Not only that, some countries could declare that simply speaking the name of an opposition party is punishable by death.

We cannot support this.

Probally the best point in this thread.

Don't expect any support from my nation.

FREE HOWARD STERN!!!!
The Empire of Bracia

sorry, thank you for your input, my proposal was deleted on monday because it didn't gain support.