NationStates Jolt Archive

As per the requests, suggestions and pleadings of many of the more experienced DELEGATES, I am posting this proposal draft before the UN FORUM before i resubmit it.

Please give me your criticism and your ideas.
Your suggestions, objections.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

heh...

SO... the major correction I plan to make is to further define "basic information" as some people have suggested. Any ideas on how to develop this will be appreciated as well. I imagined it as accurate, unbiased information regarding all nations, their political views, information that you might find in an almanac... etc.

THANK YOU MANY TIMES OVER!! especially the 75-odd of you who supported this the first time around!

NOW i present... the

FREEDOM TO INFORMATION ACT

NOTING that opressive and unjust Governments of the World often deprive their citizens of information as a way of opressing them further,

ALSO NOTING that propaganda, often made up of lies and false information, is widespread throughout the World, and

UNDERSTANDING that people without a complete and accurate picture of the world around them are unable to make informed and proper choices,

THE UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY

RESOLVES that
1) No Government shall withhold basic information from its citizens.
2) No Government shall deny its citizens access to such information through the media or otherwise.
3) No Government shall spread false information to further its own cause or damage the reputation of an institution, person, or cause

I like it. Governments should be held accountable to their people and not lie to accomplish goals. Maybe a way to improve it would be to more specifically define basic information, though I could get the jist of it easily.

-His Imperial Majesty the Most Revered One of Krygillia

As per the requests, suggestions and pleadings of many of the more experienced DELEGATES, I am posting this proposal draft before the UN FORUM before i resubmit it.

And us regular members don't count? For shame... :wink:

Might I add its a good thing you did post it here first, people who run on ahead and submit with-out thinking get the usual "Should have displayed it here first" argument like a text based slap. :)

Please give me your criticism and your ideas.
Your suggestions, objections.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Is this from some-where? Its very suitable, nice, :wink:

FREEDOM TO INFORMATION ACT

Nice title, you practically won the Sheep vote right there. For better Sheep vote grabbing, change it to "Freedom of Information Act" :wink:

NOTING that opressive and unjust Governments of the World often deprive their citizens of information as a way of opressing them further,

Hmmm, like dictatorships, psycho and benign, Compulsory Consumerist States... I am repeating myself here I know, its the second time I've said that today, :wink: ... Also just want to point out almost all nations repress information, and while

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

There is usually more then oppression as a reason for it... But some one with more time can dish out such points, I'm just here for a quick read-and-advise session.

ALSO NOTING that propaganda, often made up of lies and false information, is widespread throughout the World, and

Agreed, it is usually false, but I feel the freedom of choice proposal was some way to helping this, also don't you think governments have a right to "inform" their citizenry? :wink:

UNDERSTANDING that people without a complete and accurate picture of the world around them are unable to make informed and proper choices,

I am getting goose bumps, I suggest for an educational reason you give the Freedom of Choice resolution found in the "Passed Resolutions" or what-ever list on the U.N. page a read, it may be of interest if your writing such a proposal as this.

THE UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY

Did I just hear a trumpet fan-fare? ( j/k ! )

RESOLVES that

Using correct format/language. One mark, :wink:

1) No Government shall withhold basic information from its citizens.

Try to define "basic information". Other-wise "State-Secrets" will become "Basic Information"... :?

2) No Government shall deny its citizens access to such information through the media or otherwise.

I tried this myself with my "Sanctity of Mass Media" (Failed to reach Quorum) proposal, but you'll need to still define basic information, also mention mass media too.

3) No Government shall spread false information to further its own cause or damage the reputation of an institution, person, or cause

Hmmm. I have my doubts on this, your practically saying what the governments can and cannot say, and this is a dangerous path your wandering onto, also there is one or two N.S. issues which deal with propoganda come to think of it, so really, this is semi-redundant come to think of it, governments already have a semi-precedent in using or deciding not to use it...

Well, thats all I got, just my two Almighty Komok Dollars... :)

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

A perfect theory. Notice how I said the word theory.

If one lets an entire population know of everything that is going on, there would probably be some sort of anarchy when questionable issues and their resolves come to the public light.

Media, of course, would find ways to manipulate these findings to incite fear and outrage in the public.

The CRO wishes for the development of this issue to end right here before more resources are wasted on this unpressing issue.

Rogue Outlaws, now now, I would not shoot it down straight-away, many Real World Nations have some form of Freedom of Information,

I know my own Australia does, as does Britain, I think, from my memory,

I think America does too, quite a few do, last I checked, we did not fall into anarchy, and needless to say, if you live in a democratic nations,

"Information is the currency of democracy." - Thomas Jefferson.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

Misjudgement is the currency of Democracy.

Information is a tool like much else. For my own ends I will support this, since I believe Information is prerequisite to Judgement,
but I notice that not all nations are interested in having their peoples judge for themselves.

It's not like most people think for themselves anyway (!)

I don't think that it will be possible to provide an appropriate definition of "basic information". This is one point that I will cede to the advocators of national sovereignty - decisions on the kind of information must be case-by-case, depending on the nation's situation (e.g. the British population might not have made it through WW2 and the Blitz without being fed encouraging government propaganda, but, in peace-time, now would not tolerate such lies). Therefore I propose an overhaul of this proposal. It should go something like this:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DECLARATION

NOTING that oppressive and unjust Governments of the World often deprive their citizens of information as a way of oppressing them further,

ALSO NOTING that the use of government-devised propaganda, often made up of lies, half-truths, and false information, is widespread throughout the World, and

UNDERSTANDING that people without a complete and accurate picture of the world around them are unable to make informed and proper choices,

HOWEVER RECOGNISING that sometimes a degree of censorship or propaganda must be used (for instance, during times of war, or concerning official secrets)

THE UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY,

1)STRONGLY URGES all governments of UN members to withhold as little information from citizens as is not deemed unreasonable;
2)STRONGLY URGES all said governments to allow citizens to access information through mass media or otherwise, where not deemed unreasonable;
3)STRONGLY URGES all said governments to avoid, where not deemed unreasonable, spreading false information to further their own causes or damage the reputations of institutions, individuals, or causes;
4)TRUSTS individual member governments to use their own better judgement in deciding what measure of liberalisation is reasonable locally;
5)CALLS UPON governments of non-UN states to follow these guidelines.

I do like Myopia's version, the originator would do well to read and adopt it, if only in part even, though it seems a reasonable summary of what changes are best made...

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

Thanks Komokom!

So Lancamore, d'yu want to do a joint proposal based on our melded ideas?

Our concern is that such a resolution will give citizens a false expectation that they are getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This proposal is simply suggesting that governments not restrict information or lie unless they think it is necessary. That really does little to nothing to ensure that citizens are given true and accurate information. Yet the simple fact that such a proposal has been passed (if it is) might give them the false expectation and lead them to give less critical thought of the information at hand than they might otherwise. Are we risking doing more harm than good here?

I agree... Myopia's version is suited. Allows for desired affect but does not infring on nation's right to rule.

Sorry for the wait.. i havent been here in a couple of days.

I really appreciate all the feedback im getting on this issue.
First off, i would like to answer some arguments made already. The purpose of this law is NOT to force governments to make every bit of information they possess public. That is the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act in the states, i believe.

This law targets states whose people know nothing but lies and misinformation. Certian places in the middle east, i would like to assume, contain millions who think that America is currently on a ruthless campaign to exterminate Islam, impose its imperial rule on the world etc etc etc... That is certianly not the case. This law would require, for example, that these people have access to the truth about America, its actions, and its intentions.

For this reason was the title "freedom TO information" rather than "freedom OF information. I believe that the former better describes the situations that I had in mind.

I will keep a copy of Myopia's revision saved somewhere for reference and rewriting purposes.

One of the real issues was the definition of "basic information." I believe that is the real issue at hand, as it defines the purpose and extent of this law. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me suggestions on how to better describe it, bearing in mind the example i used earlier.

With the most sincere thanks,
Luke Beland,
Patriarch of Lancamore

hahah appologies to any un MEMBERS who were offended or excluded during our preamble..

and YES the line of poetry..

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

is part of a poem etched on a Plaque beneath the Statue of Liberty. Somebody must have wrote it, but i am not at liberty to share that information :wink:

In good humor,
Luke Beland
Patriarch of Lancamore

This is on the face of it absurd.

A "lie" told often enough is the Truth. People believe it, so it doesn't make any difference whether it "actually happened" or not.

If we go on for 3,000 years about how Jews were slaves in Egypt, does it really make any difference if they really were or not? The important truth, that people believe that Jews were slaves in Egypt, is true, even if the literal events of the Pharoh enslaving Arameans in Thebes never really happened.

People say that Al Gore said that he "invented the internet" and therefore "lied outrageously to many people". Now, the fact that those words never actually exitted his mouth in the literal sense is completely unimportant - the important truth is that character assassination of Al Gore was so effective that people believe he said it. And thus, the world is no different than if he actually had!

If you get away with something, then by very definition you got away with it. Do I have to draw you a frickin diagram? If you lie, and people believe it, you retroactively told the truth. Propoganda is simply information distribution if your paradigm gets accepted.

Rather than get your underware all tied up about whether people are "lying" or not - how about we all just pick up a stick and agree to use anybody who loses the next culture war for a piñata?

Don't make me come over there.

This discussion has gone in a direction that was not intended to be a part of the proposal. We appologise for the vague wording that caused this. Please take your argument to a more appropreate audience.

Esteemed Nations,
It would seem that my vague wording of the Freedom to Information 'draft' has allowed you, along with many others, to misunderstand the true purpose of the law.

The purpose is not to force governments to reveal information, or even to hold them unswayingly to the truth. As has been pointed out, propaganda goes both ways in a war. Good guys use it too. Come to think of it, the propaganda element needs serious revision, or perhaps should be completely eliminated from the draft (it was a bit of an afterthought).

The purpose of this law would be to keep governments from interfering in the free exchange of complete, accurate and unbiased information within their country. The issue is not so much propaganda as supression of ideas and information for the purpose of controling the will of the masses.

I do NOT believe that this law should entitle citizens to access all information posessed by their government. They chose the government, in theory, because they wanted those people to run the country FOR THEM.

I hope that with this new perspective on the Freedom to Information Act's purpose, we can create a spectacular document that will sail through the hurdles and referendums to a place in Nation-State History.

With hopes for the future,
Luke Beland
Patriarch of Lancamore

I have just read the Freedom of Choice resolution thouroughly, and there are several points upon which these two documents come perilously close to coinciding.

I will put in something to the effect of "RECALLING the spirit and purpose of the Freedom of Choice Resolution..." to answer the argument of similarity.

I DO believe that there are major points not covered by Freedom of Choice, mainly in the supression of information etc etc.

OOC: when i first drafted this proposal, Freedom of Choice was either a brand new resolution, or not even a resolution yet.

From what I can tell, the basic premise is that transparency in gov't practice is what you are looking for and not necessarily "freedom of information" per se. Transparency, coupled with accountability (through public oversight committees or freedom of the press, for example), are at the heart of any non-Hobbesian type of gov't. However, this type of gov't is not necessarily for everyone, as it does lend itself to a kind of demogoguery that gives democracy a bad name...

This is retarded, cause every nation holds back information from it's citizens, and most of the good ones do it for the good of their citizens. As other people have said there is also no point in having a dictatorship, if the dictator has to tell his citizens everything.

A bit vague, and this obliterates the point of a central intelligence agency.

I honestly do not believe that you can find an appropriate definition of basic information, because this kind of thing has to depend on the situation. How about this for an idea? Under the freedom of choice resolution, everyone has the right to request information. So why not make a proposal which says that if a citizen requests info, the burden is on the govt to make a case for keeping it secret, rather than on the citizen to make a case for revealing the information. Rather like "presumed innocent until proven guilty" - a presumption that information should be accessible until secretism (is that a word?) is justified.

At first, I must admit that I had concerns over this contradicting national soveregnty (that spelling sucked), but I think Myopia had some great ideas, and I would find myself supporting a proposal more like his than the original.

I'm glad that this was made to be easily found for debate before being made into a proposal.

My compliments Lancamore.

You've got good ideas here.

Keep up the good work.

I hope to soon see a modified version of this up for vote.

I do like what this proposal is trying to represent however knowing good and bad governments, I cannot support this. Governments are in the business of "governing" their populations. Governing is a nice way of saying "control" and information is the foundation of this and this proposal is offering a solution from a external source (UN) for a internal (regional) process. Here is my point. If the proposal is implemented within a country and a government uses it to cover lies (false sense of openness), this proposal encourages governments to hide more (given them a veil). Even worse, if a lie is uncovered, populations may come to the UN to attempt to correct the problem since they have little control over their government and the only one that appears to care is the UN. Also the government can "spin" that the problem isn't their's, it is the way the UN wrote the proposal and blame the UN. Either way, I do not see any good coming from such a proposal and I apologize. I would love to be positive about this but unfortunately, I have to be realistic.

I do like what this proposal is trying to represent however knowing good and bad governments, I cannot support this. Governments are in the business of "governing" their populations. Governing is a nice way of saying "control" and information is the foundation of this and this proposal is offering a solution from a external source (UN) for a internal (regional) process. Here is my point. If the proposal is implemented within a country and a government uses it to cover lies (false sense of openness), this proposal encourages governments to hide more (given them a veil). Even worse, if a lie is uncovered, populations may come to the UN to attempt to correct the problem since they have little control over their government and the only one that appears to care is the UN. Also the government can "spin" that the problem isn't their's, it is the way the UN wrote the proposal and blame the UN. Either way, I do not see any good coming from such a proposal and I apologize. I would love to be positive about this but unfortunately, I have to be realistic.

sorry for the double post. First one error out but posted succesfully.

Lancamore, about your post earlier. Does that mean you don't like the idea of promoting and separating my version as a joint effort? As to your intended target, well, you need to make it clear in the text what you're trying to do. Also, I don't think that the problem in the RL example you gave is due to govt. misinformation. I mean, Saudi Arabia is actually a US ally, but there's a lot of anti-American feeling there anyway - the cause is not government, but the fundamentalists who take a few legitimate grievances against the US and American capitalism, and twist them into something much more worthy of hatred, then turn it into a religious crusade. And restricting that would be a violation of freedom of speech. So really I don't know that your proposal would help in the situation you cite.

The telegram you sent me (just for the benefit of others) read:

The purpose of this law would be to keep governments from interfering in the free exchange of complete, accurate and unbiased information within their country. The issue is not so much propaganda as supression of ideas and information for the purpose of controling the will of the masses.

I do not believe that this law should entitle citizens to know everything that their government does.

I think that what you want is more of a free exchange of information proposal, whereas what you have created is more of a free access to government information proposal. Somebody was working on a free media proposal recently - "Sanctity of mass media"? Can't remember who that was, anyway if somebody can remember, then you should talk to that person.

Myopia, i have been in contact with the author of mass media... kokkom or something like that if my memory serves.

YES!!! you are the first person to understand. Free EXCHANGE of truthful information, prevention of government SUPPRESSION of this free exchange of accurate info. Government cannot deny its citizens the ability to find and access such accurate and complete information.

The title brings into mind the Freedom of Information Act in the United States, which requires the US Government to make all information that it posesses available to citizens.

This proposal's purpose is quite different, and getting that point accross requires a name change. Perhaps the "Right to Knowledge" act.

Agreed, Myopia, the middle east situation in RL is vastly more complicated than what i described.

NATIONS PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS AND UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSAL!

Thank you
Luke Beland
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

If that is the case then you must completely overhaul your proposal. The wording should be more like:

STRONGLY URGES governments of UN member nations to avoid, as far as they deem reasonable, suppression of the free exchange of information between their citizens, including, but not limited to, via mass media, the internet, and word-of-mouth.

EDIT: By the way, if you are going to deal with free exchange of info, would you mind if I made the suggestions that I put at the top of the page into my own proposal, with a credit to you for inspiration?

EDIT 2: Also, you might want to change the title so it refers to exchange.

Actualy, its Komokom, but its all semantics now, yeah, I tried to get through my "Sanctity of Mass Media" proposal as an opposition move to a "Sanctity in Media" or some such proposal seeking to limit what we saw on T.V. but in such a way as it was so vague almost anything could be banned.

The irony is, _Myopia_ got it bang on with their version in the post above, and I failed as though most agreed with my proposal, its was simply too bogged down in specifics and definitions to be easy to read, I spent more time handling "What does this mean"'s then the usually more common "nOOb, Dis iS StOOpiD!"'s, :wink:

In summation, with little modification, and heeding _Myopia_, this proposal, with some hard lobbying, could go places ...

- The Rep of Komokom.

Lancamore, I don't want to offend you by doing this without your permission - since you seem to be doing a free exchange of info proposal, may I or may I not do a free access to info proposal along the lines of my idea above (if a citizen requests info, the burden is on the govt to make a case for keeping it secret, rather than on the citizen to make a case for revealing the information), if I credit you for inspiration?