NationStates Jolt Archive

CONVINCED that the freedom of press is a vital part of every nation's fundamental right of expression and a vital part of every human's right to the truth and knowledge of one's given country and one's perception of other countries. Freedom of press allows objective members of society to highlight the good and the bad of a given nation and to allow for members of that nation and members not of that nation to see an unbiased account of the current state of a given country.

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the quality of information on the state of the union in every member nation is widely disregarded to ignorance by the world because of lack of knowledge. Freedom of the press gives precedence to expanding the knowledge base of the current state of member and non-member nations alike.

CONDEMNING the misinformation of governments to the world that wish not to share the everyday occurrences in a given country through strict control of what can and cannot be reported by all forms of the press.

1. APPEALS to all member nations to enact legislature to allow immediate freedom of the press within their borders.

2. URGES all member nations to send the press to neighboring countries, far away countries, and even to areas of combat to bring back the full story to its citizens.

3. RECOMMENDS all members promote and expand the reaches of press within their given countries so that all citizens have some access to the news.

4. SUPPORTS all member nations in an effort to expand their news capabilities with needed funds, government assistance, and trade agreements to conform to the new standards of freedom of press.

I have resubmitted my proposal, "Freedom of Press," because it had two more votes to reach quroum at the time of its last day's UN update.

Please, all those in favor, endorse it.

Your support is always appreciated.

Come on, all, what do you think?

President Huntington:

From the proposal you have given us, I understand the following:

You are convinced, and deeply disturbed, and condemning...
And you appeal, urge, recommend and support...

What exactly is it your resolution proposes at the level of UN action? From my readings, I don't know what exactly it is you are wanting to see the UN do. Maybe I have missed something, but I can't find a clear proposal in what you have written.

Thank you for your clarification.

Claude Debussy
Ambassador to the United Nations
Federation of Music Nuts

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia agrees with Mr. Debussy in that it does not see that this proposal shall bring about any enforcement by the U.N. of said freedom of the press.

As such, we support this resolution's commitment to international information. However, we must respectfully decline to enact such legislation as is requested inside the Dominion. To do so would give a loud voice to demagogues and terrorists which we are not prepared to give.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the U.N.

What exactly is it your resolution proposes at the level of UN action?

Action is in the hands, and always has been, in the hands of each sovereign nation which holds power within the United Nations.

This proposal, Freedom of Press, is just that - a working outline and motivation - for all nations within UN jurisdiction to begin working towards a better national and international level of trust between citizens and immigrants in establishing a reliable source of news.

Thus, each nation can easily, with the language and settings used, go about implementing a free press from whatever vantage point they are at in a manner in which works efficiently for their own country.

However, we must respectfully decline to enact such legislation as is requested inside the Dominion. To do so would give a loud voice to demagogues and terrorists which we are not prepared to give.

Please explain how allowing your citizens access to news and allowing your journalists to report it would give a loud voice to demaogogues and terrorists? Don't your citizens have a right-to-know what is truthfully going on within your country?

I guess he doesn't!

I do to some extent but there are many things I would never let out into the public domain.

I do to some extent but there are many things I would never let out into the public domain.

Agreed. There are things governments must keep private and "Top Secret" to protect its country, however, that is why this proposal in essence is a suggestion and a guide for nations to implement - in time - a free press society under sovereign control and power.

I think that this is a good idea. Misinformation is always wrong if it is known to be so when given to the public or media.

But the freedom of speach that the media would be given also has to specified somewhat along with the part about how "society being able to highlight the good and bad points freely".
Now rules about misinformation must go both ways as the government should be able to defend itself against any slander or libel as any other organisation can.

So as long as this doesn't enable the public and the media to do what it has stopped the government from doing as in fabricating events and happening to best suit their position, then this is a good proposal in my opinion.

So as long as this doesn't enable the public and the media to do what it has stopped the government from doing as in fabricating events and happening to best suit their position, then this is a good proposal in my opinion.

Thank-you for your feedback, yes, the purpose behind this proposal is to give nations the motivation and will-power behind such a momentous journey into the realms of free press, but at the same time, to set up their own ways to go about achieivng it.

Thus, a government can defend itself from slander, just as media branch can be brought up on charges of libel.

As long as there are no loopholes for anyone to exploit and it is fair for all sides of the coin. Which I suppose is the case as members of government are first and foremost citizens of that coutry, ergo not being exempt from the ruling. Then this is actually a very good and much needed civil right.

Although this is strictly for 'Misinformation" and not the "concealment of information". So there may be governments in the UN that don't vote for this (or maybe they will) and possibly instead of using a tactic of "misinformation" as they had done before, they use a tactic of "no information". Or atleast as little as they can get away with without jeopardising their position.

The only problem is that who decides what information is a case of National Security and what isn't is still the same governing body. If they have the morals to use misinformation as a method of control initially, then I don't hold much hope for them not being bias to what is a matter of National Security and what is just concealment of information to fascilitate their goal of self preservation.

Although that doesn't mean that not having this resolution pass is better than it being passed because it definately gives the people of a country more political freedom.
This certainly has my backing if that means anything.

The only problem is that who decides what information is a case of National Security and what isn't is still the same governing body.

That all depends on the country, the UN's role is to simply make sure and back-up all members in implementing the policy route they choose to go.

All support, and dissent for that matter, is appreciated.

Yes, like you said in a previous address to Music Nuts on this topic; "Action is in the hands, and always has been, in the hands of each sovereign nation which holds power within the United Nations."

Atleast if this Proposal goes ahead it may give the people of those nations a little power aswell.

I'm all for.
I think it should be given the chance to be voted on by the UN membership.
The proposal concerns a fundamental right, the right of the public to be informed of the actions of their government and citizenry alike, and knowledge is the key to so many things, not the least of which is democracy.

Atleast if this Proposal goes ahead it may give the people of those nations a little power aswell.

I can only hope.

BUMP.

I've endorsed it again :D

I've endorsed it again :D

Thanks!

Unfortunately, the Dominion of Necros-Vacuia is possessed of citizens who have a deep grudge against the government and our benevolent Lord Praetor. Therefore, we try to control the media as tightly as we possibly can.

We would certainly like to give our citizens the truth. What we don't want is distortion by opinion.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

(OOC: ^^; As a person, I'm all for this legislation; however, the nation I RP is a pseudo-Communist dictatorship with heavy repressive tendencies.)

Ignorance is Strength.

The Democratic Republic of Ryladesh disagrees with this UN resoultion and therefore refuses to vote for this resoultion.

Quorum reached. :)

Hmmm... should really be in the Furtherment of Democracy category.
Just consider yourself lucky I'm not mean enough to recommend it for deletion :wink:

Hmmm... should really be in the Furtherment of Democracy category.

I respectfully disagree.

Furtherment of democracy would mean that freedom of press would enhance a citizen's democractic lifestyle within a given country. However, freedom of press does not do that whatsoever, nor does any other freedom, because democracy has nothing to do with freedom, per se.

de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Democracy is about the people being part of government whether they actually have freedom or not, democracy can be "compulsory" as the first issue of a country within the game decides.

free·dom (frdm)
n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
1. Political independence.
2. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
1. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
2. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).

Freedom is an inherent right, democracy is not. Thus, to further democracy would mean that freedom of the press would make democracy a more "free" process, which it does not. Press seeks to report, inform, and free citizens from ignorance.

This is by no means democractic, it is a means of education if anything else.

Hmmm... should really be in the Furtherment of Democracy category.
Just consider yourself lucky I'm not mean enough to recommend it for deletion :wink:

Actually it reads as a furtherment of democracy resolution to me as well, but I'm glad you will keep it in the queue ... it is a very well written resolution and should spark an interesting debate in forum.

I can already say that the Confederated City States of Mikitivity will be voting YES.

Tuesday Heights, well done, well done!

10kMichael

I suppose after re-reading my proposal, it could be considered a furtherment to democracy to some and human rights to others, either way I'm glad Myrth let it slide (even though three mods already endorsed it). :wink:

Thanks, everyone, for the support!

I suppose after re-reading my proposal, it could be considered a furtherment to democracy to some and human rights to others, either way I'm glad Myrth let it slide (even though three mods already endorsed it). :wink:


It is fair to say that when you design a resolution to solve a real world issue instead of just for the sake of getting a resolution in the queue, that strong cases could be made for dropping it in multiple categories.

I consider that a sign of a well written document.

10kMichael

Ah, thanks, again!