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.

Well, all, it made quorum and will be the next resolution up for vote.

Let's start the debate, ladies and gentlemen.

Hmm... I don't see anything blatantly wrong with it as it doesn't require anything just a whole bunch of urging and being deeply distrubed. Oh yes, and the mandantory bit of condeming...

Anywho, since tyranny is the natural result of the limitation of information we support this proposal and will vote for it. Of course we'd have liked to seen a bit about returning the control of the news to the people rather than the government but it's still a good start.


~HPEH James the Sorta-Elven
Premeir de Caras Galadon

Of course we'd have liked to seen a bit about returning the control of the news to the people rather than the government but it's still a good start.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from... however, since the government of nations are the only ones that can regulate and enact legislation to conform to a free press standard, it makes sense that they are the first ones to begin the process of converting a given country to those particular standards.

Unless the nations of my region rise up in rebellion, I will support this resolution Tuesday Heights.

Likes it, will " dial - a - delegate ", most likely my own ... Make sure they know when it comes to open voting, I'll even drop something on the region messag thing ...

Is very very very nice, reminds me of my failed ( lack of effort to push ) "something-something of Mass Media" a while back as a poke at the some extremist christian group trying to push through a morality agenda ... Ah, "memories ..."

( Will vote : ) { Y E S } for it. :D

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

Seems like a great proposal to me.

Will have my support at the vote, unless for some reason the region decides otherwise.

Yes: two carefully-worded, correctly spelt and well-thought-out UN resolutions in succession ...

... whatever are we coming to here? :shock:


:wink:

I concur with the comments made by the honourable member of Caras Galadon, however the government of Telidia is in support of this resolution. We will open a debate in our regional government and request support for this resolution from our delegate and regional UN members.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Only possible problem that I see is that it doesn't include the liable/slander clause that the RW 1st amendment has. Other than that, great proposal. (goes off to try and rewrite his own)

Congratulations and my support to you.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

I am in agreement with this proposal since it is, as stated earlier, a good first step forward.

Although I do have one question on the matter.

While reading the paper, I find there is no mention of certain cases where a government may need to take control of the media, if even for only a short while.

I believe that it may be necissary to censor the media in some minor ways as it benefits the people and their nation.

The main example I give is that of wartime. If the media was to go onto a battlefield, and broadcast troop movements and positions on live television, does that not pose a threat to our soldiers? Does that not mean that the enemies we fight would then know of our locations and have a more than ample chance to sabotage our plans?

I think that this article or the next in this regard needs to state a governments power over the media, and when it is acceptable to curm their actions. If you know the media, then you will know that they do not take no as an answer.

Empire of Meiyo
Member of The Coolness Conglomerate

Greetings. A new proposal has been submitted. Although freedom of the press is certainly a valuable thing, closer inspection of this proposal reveals that it is something much more than is claims.

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

Although it seems innocuous enough, certainly that is not something that could be legislated. If so, that would increase the governments activity in the press, yielding to potential abuse through propaganda.

"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."

Same problem. Forcing the press to go to specific places and to cover specific things is a way to steer our world into a 'Big Brother' scenario.

"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."

That is already the case.

"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."

And finally the truth is revealed. Funds and government assistance. Surely our people don't want yet another area of their lives where the government tries to abuse its powers.

So my friends, I am sad to say I will be voting against this proposal.

I bid you peace.

I am deeply troubled by several points of the Freedom of Press resolution.

Point No. 2 urging all member nations to send press agents into neighboring countries seems to promote international espionage. Is the Press truly free if it can be ordered hither and yon by the government? And is the reporter who obeys the order an agent of the press or an agent of the government? And which press agencies will be patronized and awarded choice assignments, those which disagree with government policies, or those which agree? This point of the resolution will turn a free press into an intelligence gathering agency and its reporters into de facto spies. The potential for abuse here is too great. If the press is to be free, it cannot be subject to the kind of government control described in this resolution.

I am also troubled by the vagueness of Point No. 4. Government assistance? The idea of re-working trade policies, which does not appeal to me at all. But this is not nearly as troubling to me as Point No. 2.

This resolution could leave a country vulnerable to any number of attacks against its security and sovreignty and should be voted down.

--Paul Coates, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and President for Life of the Proud, Faithful, Fearless Nation of Xazakstan

I also am voting against this resolution, because there's no clause for freedom from the press. Some sort of amendment needs to be made to this proposal to protect citizens from violation of privacy by the media.

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

Fair enough.

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.

Also a fair point, with one glaring exception. Giving the press complete free reign in combat situations is never a wise decision. Giving away troop positions, tactics and battle plans is as good as handing the playbook to the OpFor and saying "Come & get it!"

I am not for shutting the press down completely, but careless talk costs lives. Sometimes even the lives of the reporters. It's a combat zone, not a tea party. Some restrictions are necessary on the battlefield.

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.

Fair enough, but when you say "expand" are you saying that the government should subsidize the press in some way on an ongoing fashion? True "freedom of the press" means that the government should leave it up to the press media to support themselves, lest it become a state-sponsored agency.

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.

Again, it should be the press that is responsible for supporting itself, not the members of this august body.

- President Robert M. April
The Federation of Nachoburrito

I agree with this honorable forum poster. I agree with the principle of Freedom of Speech, but Line 4 unwisely quantifies it by requiring nations to spend money is a violation of the soveriegnty of a nation's people to support the method of their choice.

I will vote "NO" on this proposal, unless this line is stricken.



quote="IncongruentDemarcation"]Greetings. A new proposal has been submitted. Although freedom of the press is certainly a valuable thing, closer inspection of this proposal reveals that it is something much more than is claims.

[...]

"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."

And finally the truth is revealed. Funds and government assistance. Surely our people don't want yet another area of their lives where the government tries to abuse its powers.

So my friends, I am sad to say I will be voting against this proposal.

I bid you peace.[/quote]

I'm sure this resolution will pass without much trouble. After all, most nations don't dare come out and say they oppose a free press.

However, there are several points which raise flags. First, urging nations (not private press organizations) to send the press to neighboring countries. If we want a truly free press, the nations themselves should not be sending them anywhere. This clause creates opportunities for abuse by government sending out reporters to “bring back the full story” with a wink and a nod.

Next, recommending that all members (meaning UN member governments) expand the reaches of the press. Again, the golden rule for abuse of power applies--he who has the gold makes the rules. If a member government funds this expansion, the press will form a loyalty to that government. They will not want to bite the hand that feeds them, and will thus bury any information that many appear damning to their government. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Finally, [the UN] supporting all member nations in this expansion effort with "needed" funds, etc., will create an additional loyalty of the press to the UN. Again, follow the money.

A free press, to be truly free, must be independent. It must be free of outside influence. This bill does not meet that challenge. Instead it encourages a situation where the media is subjected to undue government influence.

This is not the UN's business. This is nothing more than a "one-size-fits-all" attempt to destroy the individual nation state. The UN should concern itself with true human rights crises. Why should it care if my press is lazy, or provincial? If my people want better news, they'll get it from abroad.

Doc Phargle

While we do not necessarily agree with everything our esteemed colleague from Pharglonia wrote to the letter, we do agree with his main point in principle; that being this issue is not something the UN should be addressing.

Freedom of the press is a National issue, not an international one, and UN has no business trying to turn every nationstate into a free-press republic or democracy.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

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.

Also a fair point, with one glaring exception. Giving the press complete free reign in combat situations is never a wise decision. Giving away troop positions, tactics and battle plans is as good as handing the playbook to the OpFor and saying "Come & get it!"

I am not for shutting the press down completely, but careless talk costs lives. Sometimes even the lives of the reporters. It's a combat zone, not a tea party. Some restrictions are necessary on the battlefield.

Thus the difference between urging and requiring. Feel free to break out a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/) if you need. Careful reading is always a plus when debating international legislation.

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.

Fair enough, but when you say "expand" are you saying that the government should subsidize the press in some way on an ongoing fashion? True "freedom of the press" means that the government should leave it up to the press media to support themselves, lest it become a state-sponsored agency.

Again, note that the clause begins with the predicate, "recommends." There are other interpretations one might take on that clause, as well -- suppose a nation allows a free press, but restricts access to paper or radio spectrum so that this "free" press cannot actually reach the people? The message means nothing is the means to spread it are lost.

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.

Again, it should be the press that is responsible for supporting itself, not the members of this august body.

Note again the active verb, "supports." Some nations may not even have a developed press organization -- do you truly expect such a body to just spring up on its own overnight after the resolution (hopefully) passes?

This is not the UN's business. This is nothing more than a "one-size-fits-all" attempt to destroy the individual nation state. The UN should concern itself with true human rights crises. Why should it care if my press is lazy, or provincial? If my people want better news, they'll get it from abroad.

Freedom of press is one of the most critical of human rights. Without it, there is little reason to believe that the people will be made aware of abuses of all other human right. Beware the government which desires to keep its people in the dark.

I'm sure this resolution will pass without much trouble. After all, most nations don't dare come out and say they oppose a free press.

I agree, although that's a bit less true when most of the voters can vote anonymously.

However, there are several points which raise flags. First, urging nations (not private press organizations) to send the press to neighboring countries. If we want a truly free press, the nations themselves should not be sending them anywhere. This clause creates opportunities for abuse by government sending out reporters to “bring back the full story” with a wink and a nod.

Ideally, perhaps, the media would be capable of getting any operative to any location to report on any story. In the real world, you don't get on the aircraft of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to cover his attendance of the G8 summit unless invited to do so by the German government. Take the US-led forces in Iraq; do you think the news crews embedded in those military units just waltzed up and asked if they could pretty please come along?

I also am voting against this resolution, because there's no clause for freedom from the press. Some sort of amendment needs to be made to this proposal to protect citizens from violation of privacy by the media.

You could, you know, do it yourself within your own nation, or something. You kind of are the head of a sovereign state, or so it would appear.

Freedom of the press is a National issue, not an international one, and UN has no business trying to turn every nationstate into a free-press republic or democracy.

The recognition and protection of basic and essential human rights is near the top of my international agenda and is considered by many to be quite the legitimate issue for NSUN consideration.

Could not agree more. This issue has no business being discussed at the International level. The fact that it has been presented is an insult to the perceived capability of the national leadership within the International community.

I will vote against this resolution and encourage a similiar vote from our representative, Francos Spain.

TAG for later... I just got off of work, am tired, and need some dinner. I will respond to everyone later tonight when the server is working better than it is now.

Thanks to all for the dissent and support; I encourage both!

The New Bucks Head government refuses to vote for this resolution. The press know too much as it is sometimes. Letting them do whatever they want, whenever they want would be the end of anyone's privacy

The New Bucks Head will never vote for this resolution.

You have my nations vote :)

It doesn't really matter whether or not the proposal passes, though I'm betting it will. As many of you have already pointed out, the wording is very important. It does a lot of urging, recommending, and supporting, but it doesn't actually require anything. Even if it passes nobody has to do a darn thing.
I am still voting for it though as it will at least state the UN's position on the matter even if it doesn't enforce that position, and I am for more of the recommendations than I am against.

Article 1 of this resolution is pretty good. Articles 2-4 are nonsensical outside of a controlling political environment. The government of Cabinia has no need to urge its reporters abroad, nor fund the media in general. If Cabinia's media care to go to foreign parts, that's nobody's business but their own.

Being my first resolution, please forgive my naive voice of dissention. I'm concerned for the lack of an amendment concerning RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESS. We've all seen cases where the way an event is reported, can sway public sentiment unfairly and cause more harm then good. Especially with sensationalistic reporting. By the same token, playing a story down can cause undue hardship and ignorance to a cause, even though it's a matter of public knowledge.
Could not agree more. This issue has no business being discussed at the International level. The fact that it has been presented is an insult to the perceived capability of the national leadership within the International community.

Perhaps a better resolution would be to respect and grant certain political immunities to foreign press.

Only possible problem that I see is that it doesn't include the liable/slander clause that the RW 1st amendment has. Other than that, great proposal. (goes off to try and rewrite his own)

Ah, the reason for this as that this part of the idea of free press is a sovereign issue, as all nations have different levels of libel/slander.

I believe that it may be necissary to censor the media in some minor ways as it benefits the people and their nation.

No. It never benefits the people. People have this proposal confused with guarding nuclear secrets; this proposal does not give the press right to confidential information, only information that is publically known, thus, governement secrets and censorship to agree debated by sovereign nations is agreeable.

And finally the truth is revealed. Funds and government assistance.

Everything needs government assistance, and this is no different than every other case of anything in any given country, surely, you can see that.

Originally this propostition was called a step forward. Even I believed that at the time. Now I see many of its faults brought to light.

If we allow this to go through, we gain some respect from the citizens of our nations, some congradulations and respectfull handshakes all around.

But we are left with a massive set of problems as well. I will not restate the issues as it is just repeating what has already been stressed, time and time again.

So, we have adressed the issue, I know propose we take another step forward, just in a slightly different dirrection.

If at all possible I urge all those reading this to deny this proposition, and in its place we make a better, more sound, and more thought out proposal allong the same lines.

If we can create such a proposition, with all views accounted for, with many of the details worked out, we can effectively make a universal document which solves this issue entirely.

I suggest that we make a new thread with a BASIC idea. We then address ONE ISSUE AT A TIME in order to perfect the document. The original post with the said proposition will be updated to include the new information. After some time we will have a very thurough, a well thought out, and an agrreable course of action, created by all parties with an opinion.

I understand that this sounds somewhat idealistic, but given time and real effort, this can really work. Please help to make this and possibly future propositions better.

Empire of Meiyo
The Coolness Conglomerate.

Point No. 2 urging all member nations to send press agents into neighboring countries seems to promote international espionage.

Explain to me point-by-point how this statement above is true. Point two "urges" nations to do so, it does not force them, and this is not a governmental statement or liason to do. It is the media organizations themselves who must do this.

I also am voting against this resolution, because there's no clause for freedom from the press.

Yes, there is, the reason this proposal is worded the way it is is to allow for nations to have sovereignty over their press while promoting free press. It's quite simple, really, some of you are reading way too much into this.

Giving the press complete free reign in combat situations is never a wise decision.

Wrong. We have imbedded journalists all over the world, and with few exceptions, this statement has been proven true, but the media are not the only ones who do so and your statement should reflect as shuch.

"freedom of the press" means that the government should leave it up to the press media to support themselves, lest it become a state-sponsored agency.

Again. Wrong. Someone has to fund media to get off the ground, and this can be done without governmental influence. Expanding the media's capabilities to send out signals and to reach the masses in by no means initially left up to the media alone, especially in countries who employ no media to begin with, true?

Finally, [the UN] supporting all member nations in this expansion effort with "needed" funds, etc., will create an additional loyalty of the press to the UN.

Yes. True. No disagreements here.

However, welcome to the UN, the realm of compromisation. Didn't you read the charter when you signed up?

Compromise is part of politics. Thus, by signing up to be a member of the UN, you signed up to support other countries in need. It's part of your international duty and role in an international organization such as the United Nations.

This is not the UN's business.

See, yes, it is. An international body like the UN's premise is based on freedom and democracy, hence, why we push for democratic rights and a free press that brings about news from a given country and abroad is essential for a human's right-to-know lifestyle the world of today demands of individuals. Thus, why it's a UN worthy cause to fight for.

Santin, thank-you for defending my proposal in my daily absence.

Even if it passes nobody has to do a darn thing.

WRONG. DEAD WRONG. READ THE PROPOSAL AGAIN.

If we can create such a proposition, with all views accounted for, with many of the details worked out, we can effectively make a universal document which solves this issue entirely.

Uh, all views are accounted here for on an international level... which is what this resolution seeks to address; everything else is up to the sovereign nation, just like everyone whines for power about with EVERY resolution.

To us, in our little heavy monitored little patch of paradise, a free press NEEDS regulation, and not just to stop them spuriously "reporting" things about the government. Rvolt, as everyone knows, is a lovely place to live and what would be gained by foreign reporters telling the world that anyone that disagrees is detained without trial, Gutanamo Bay style? [sorry to go all IRL for a mo. :| ]

Similarly, and superficially of less import, Radio Free Rvolt tonight reported that one of our best known musical artists, a Mssr. Nobby Holbourn told a reporter from a foriegn paper ( The Currant Bun, if anyone's interested ) that he was working on a solo album, without the rest of his mid 20th century band, "Slayed". Holbourn goes on record (no pun intended) as saying he has no idea WHERE this story came from, as he wasn't even in the same country as the reporter of said story.

Is this really what countries with a Free Press have to endure?

For those countries that can put up with such lies, vote for, by all means.

The resolution shall pass, as it SEEMS like a good idea, and we all know that some bleeding heart liberal types will vote "for" without thinking; but when all's said and done, the only sensible option is to regulate the press and get them to only print the truth; with the proviso that it does no harm to the government, naturally.

We note, however, that the sentiments of this proposal are worthy of laudation, and for certain states, would be a boon. Just not for us. We know what's best for our people. That's why we're here. Our position is against, but we stress that we can understand if others are pro. We care THAT much.

Love, light, and peace.
William Tracy Jacks,
Dept. of Culture and Media,
Rvolt.

For those countries that can put up with such lies, vote for, by all means.

That's why individual countries must pass laws, and be active, in regulating the media to the people's standards - democratically - as all things should follow.

Articles 2-4 are nonsensical outside of a controlling political environment. The government of Cabinia has no need to urge its reporters abroad, nor fund the media in general. If Cabinia's media care to go to foreign parts, that's nobody's business but their own.

My government takes a different position wrt (with respect to) those articles.

While I agree that it should be up to my government to decide when to urge reporters to travel and when not to, the spirit of the resolution is such that my nation will certainly allow internet access to all nations to our citizens, with the understanding that by being able to get information from different nations, they will be able to make their own decisions.

10kMichael

While I agree that it should be up to my government to decide when to urge reporters to travel and when not to, the spirit of the resolution is such that my nation will certainly allow internet access to all nations to our citizens, with the understanding that by being able to get information from different nations, they will be able to make their own decisions.

Very good idea, Mikitivity, I didn't even consider the internet as a viable source for news organizations to share media with the people!

While I agree that it should be up to my government to decide when to urge reporters to travel and when not to, the spirit of the resolution is such that my nation will certainly allow internet access to all nations to our citizens, with the understanding that by being able to get information from different nations, they will be able to make their own decisions.

Very good idea, Mikitivity, I didn't even consider the internet as a viable source for news organizations to share media with the people!

I probably should have said something when this resolution was in DRAFT stage ... but unfortunately I was not able to attend the UN forum meetings much in the past month. :)

In any event, this resolution has the Confederation's support.

10kMichael

Uh, all views are accounted here for on an international level... which is what this resolution seeks to address; everything else is up to the sovereign nation, just like everyone whines for power about with EVERY resolution.

I hope that I do not sound like I was whining for power, since that is not the case. I simply think the argument over this resolution needs to end and a new one created with this as a base, but with its various ideas tweaked somwhat to better suit everyones needs.

Empire of Meiyo
The Coolness Conglomerate

Okay, as to the current UN resolution, I am voting against.

The idea behind freedom of press is to create unbiased, objective source of information. It sounds good on paper, but you have to realize it doesn't work that way. The media will still be biased, with or without freedom of press, it's just that with freedom of press that bias can be put to much stronger extremes. Freedom of press also makes the people doubt the integrity of the government. Freedom of press means that the press can make up lies and slander the government for things that never happened, creating social disorder. People have an unfortunate tendancy to believe everything they are told.

So, in effect, without freedom of press, there is biased media, and social stability.

With freedom of press, there is biased media, with social disorder.

The choice is obvious.

8 hours ago The Ultimate Socialist Democracy of Trallub It can't be as obvious as you make it. Are you suggesting that we have the government run the media? Have the government choose which stories to run and which to make small?

Its either biased media and social disorder, or, basically, no (useful) media and social stability. Neh?

8 hours ago The Ultimate Socialist Democracy of Trallub Plus, the way media is in the world today, you can always find opposite sides of any story if you search hard enough. Without Freedom, you can only find one side.
8 hours ago The Holy Empire of LordaeronII You guys completely ignored one of my main points...

Under freedom of press, the press is allowed to make up crap about the government, publish speculation as fact, etc.

A government controlled media will at least lead to social stability, and of course, this operates under the idea that the government is not corrupt.

If in the fact, the government IS corrupt, then the media will still be biased towards the government, since the government can pay the press, even if it is free press to publish their views. This happens in North America quite clearly, or at least in Canada, with the whole Liberal-friendly companies *cough* sponsorship scandal *cough*, same idea applies to media.

Oh, and don't tell me stuff like a completely seperate media network that has no ties to the government could possibly stand up to a government funded media.

Unbiased press is a theory and nothing more.

This is taken from the messages in my region's lil board thing, the quotes being other people in my region, I think this demonstrates quite clearly why I am opposed to completely free press

Okay, as to the current UN resolution, I am voting against.

The idea behind freedom of press is to create unbiased, objective source of information. It sounds good on paper, but you have to realize it doesn't work that way. The media will still be biased, with or without freedom of press, it's just that with freedom of press that bias can be put to much stronger extremes. Freedom of press also makes the people doubt the integrity of the government. Freedom of press means that the press can make up lies and slander the government for things that never happened, creating social disorder. People have an unfortunate tendancy to believe everything they are told.

So, in effect, without freedom of press, there is biased media, and social stability.

With freedom of press, there is biased media, with social disorder.

The choice is obvious.

8 hours ago The Ultimate Socialist Democracy of Trallub It can't be as obvious as you make it. Are you suggesting that we have the government run the media? Have the government choose which stories to run and which to make small?

Its either biased media and social disorder, or, basically, no (useful) media and social stability. Neh?

8 hours ago The Ultimate Socialist Democracy of Trallub Plus, the way media is in the world today, you can always find opposite sides of any story if you search hard enough. Without Freedom, you can only find one side.
8 hours ago The Holy Empire of LordaeronII You guys completely ignored one of my main points...

Under freedom of press, the press is allowed to make up crap about the government, publish speculation as fact, etc.

A government controlled media will at least lead to social stability, and of course, this operates under the idea that the government is not corrupt.

If in the fact, the government IS corrupt, then the media will still be biased towards the government, since the government can pay the press, even if it is free press to publish their views. This happens in North America quite clearly, or at least in Canada, with the whole Liberal-friendly companies *cough* sponsorship scandal *cough*, same idea applies to media.

Oh, and don't tell me stuff like a completely seperate media network that has no ties to the government could possibly stand up to a government funded media.

Unbiased press is a theory and nothing more.

This is taken from the messages in my region's lil board thing, the quotes being other people in my region, I think this demonstrates quite clearly why I am opposed to completely free press

LordaeronII, I think you need to reread my proposal and let everyone in you region do the same, and think about it for awhile.

Many, on here, need to do the same.

Freedom of Press, as a resolution is a balanced proposal to appease the national and international communities comprising the NS UN as we know it.

It gives power to sovereign nations and to the UN. It's a COMPROMISE.

Read it again, and again, until you see that, because that's how it's written and that's the language's intent.

Point No. 2 urging all member nations to send press agents into neighboring countries seems to promote international espionage.


Explain to me point-by-point how this statement above is true. Point two "urges" nations to do so, it does not force them, and this is not a governmental statement or liason to do. It is the media organizations themselves who must do this.


I think the argument for this is that some nations would attempt to use this as a loophole for espionage. If a certain nation's government has a large amount of control over the press (which I'm not sure this proposal 'prohibits') then they could send their press to foreign lands and use them as a front for spying on those countries. I'm not saying that this idea (that someone could attempt to take advantage of the proposal) has a whole lot of merit or that it is a good enough reason for a contrary vote, but I do see the credibility of the argument...


This is not the UN's business.

See, yes, it is. An international body like the UN's premise is based on freedom and democracy, hence, why we push for democratic rights and a free press that brings about news from a given country and abroad is essential for a human's right-to-know lifestyle the world of today demands of individuals. Thus, why it's a UN worthy cause to fight for.

Hm. I'm not convinced. Convince me that it's an issue for the UN, without using clichés and assertions, hopefully.

I'm just thinking of the real UN and that there are nations in it which hardly have free presses. I don't think I need to name them. Is the in-game UN so different? or is it a problem with enforcement in the real UN? or both?

There's always a little friendly friction between layers of government when power is being shared, (state-provinces vs. federal, etc.) so I don't see why people are mad that people are "complaining" about national sovereignty. Of course they will. It's in the interest of their nation to have as much power over issues as possible. They’re just looking after their constituents.

Under freedom of press, the press is allowed to make up crap about the government, publish speculation as fact, etc.


I would then recommend that you watch the film Shattered Glass (2003) staring Hayden Christensen.

Christensen is maybe best known for his role as Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

http://videoeta.com/movie.html?id=59523


Anybody who has an interest in journalism, media, and politics may find this film worth watching. Basically the story is about a journalist who makes up crap and publishes it as facts. He does this for some time.

A news story about the event:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml


But every cloud has a silver lining. Because in the case of Glass and the New Republic magazine, a competitor researched Glass's articles and the truth came out.

In other words, the media is a check onto itself.

If your nation opens up the internet and other more traditional media to other nations, you'll have competition and a check on your own journalists. The idea behind decision making is to learn to think critically.

To quote a favorite band of mine:

"Use Your Brain and Think About It!"

(The band in question is Germany's Feindflug. There always is some contraversy about the band, because the musicians have completely refused to dignify questions about their political leanings. Sadly, it shouldn't be a factor, as their music has few lyrics and is what I affectionally call "Terror EBM", which means it is about as serious as Jonathan Swift's "Immodest Proposal" <-- in other words, serious, but designed to shock and get you to think.)



That said, my nation supports Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression. Media will check upon itself, and facts will present themselves in time, they always do.

I urge you all to reconsider your positions, and I think anybody with a minor interest in this resolution (pro or con) should rent "Shattered Glass".

10kMichael

LordaeronII, I think you need to reread my proposal and let everyone in you region do the same, and think about it for awhile.

Many, on here, need to do the same.

Freedom of Press, as a resolution is a balanced proposal to appease the national and international communities comprising the NS UN as we know it.

It gives power to sovereign nations and to the UN. It's a COMPROMISE.

Read it again, and again, until you see that, because that's how it's written and that's the language's intent.

Let me see if I can say this respectully... Please drop the "holier-than-thou" attitude kind sir. If there is one thing that'll keep me from voting for this resolution, that could full well be it.

I don't mean to be rude or off topic but the way you just presented your argument you seemed to say "If you be smart you be votin' or this here resolution". Your use of "and think about it a while" and the overemphasis of "compromise" (not to mention the fact that you are treating it's validity as received knowledge) makes me feel like I'm a little kindergartenner and you're the teacher. An undertrained and overworked teacher.

I think that this will just turn more people against you than it will bring people with you. Not many people like feeling like kindergartenners.

Just something to consider.

I think the argument for this is that some nations would attempt to use this as a loophole for espionage.

Yeah, I see that now, but I think if member-nations are that paranoid; maybe they shouldn't be part of the UN. :wink:

Let me see if I can say this respectully... Please drop the "holier-than-thou" attitude kind sir. If there is one thing that'll keep me from voting for this resolution, that could full well be it.

No offense taken whatsoever, but I refuse to drop the tone of voice that I am aware of speaking in... as, it's who I am in real life and who I am on NS. If that loses votes for my resolution, so be it, but I refuse to pretend I am someone else on here and treat people with respect they haven't earned.

I'm sorry if that offends people, and I'm not apologetic if that alone loses votes for my UN resolution, but I think most UN members on this site are apathetic and do not understand the true purpose and validity of the UN as such, thus, I fight for it and against those that are deluded.

Hence, my language and it will remain as such for the rest of my life.

LordaeronII, I think you need to reread my proposal and let everyone in you region do the same, and think about it for awhile.

Many, on here, need to do the same.

Freedom of Press, as a resolution is a balanced proposal to appease the national and international communities comprising the NS UN as we know it.

It gives power to sovereign nations and to the UN. It's a COMPROMISE.

Read it again, and again, until you see that, because that's how it's written and that's the language's intent.

I just re-read it twice, and I see no reason to change my stance....

If you find something in what I said that is NOT what is stated in the proposal, point it out.

If you mean in terms of a game perspective, this really isn't that important, since it's not like our populace will actually read the press and such. So really this is more a debate over the general topic of free press.

I don't see how this proposal is appeasing those nations.... nor do I see how it gives more power to sovereign nations.... and what exactly is this a compromise between?

And I'm sorry if you meant something other than you wrote, but that's not really my fault. Don't expect me to read the hidden intent of your proposal if you used improper wording to express what you wanted to.

And I'm sorry if you meant something other than you wrote, but that's not really my fault. Don't expect me to read the hidden intent of your proposal if you used improper wording to express what you wanted to.

No. Not improper wording. Perfect wording, thank-you very much. It was very carefully worded, as I worked on this proposal/resolution for 6+ weeks. It's perfect in everyway, hence the fervor I spent in getting it to be voted on, and since it will most likely pass, I need not worry about what everyone else tries to read into it.

I'm not saying I don't want dissent. I welcome it, however, it's misplaced, and I fail to see what lines you aren't reading into, just like everyone else.

Maybe I am just a presumptious English major, but nevertheless, all issues brought up have been properly addressed in time. Yours is no different.

How does this balance the need between sovereign national rights and the international body of the UN?

Simple:

First, it makes free press law on an international level.

Second, it guides nations in making the appropriate outline to go about a free press standard, that way, all nations can conform easier by their own national government through ways in which they know are best and easily accomplished, as all governments knows how change really works within its body.

Thus, this resolution balances those that cry out the UN has too much power and those who cry out that it doesn't.

:evil:

Vote against this....so called FREE PRESS


Is this a plot to get Nation States to focus on running national news services? Why tempt already powerful people with tempting items? Allow the private sector to cover the news and fund the internet to allow private citizens of the world to take matters into their own hands.

Government interaction with any aspect of news screams censorship or corruption. It is just this sort of act that allowed Big Brother to reprogram a whole society....

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!!!!

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!!!!


Vote for this act and you better start learning how to cry your master's chat. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!!!! Vote down the FREE PRESS there is not such beast.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!!!!

Can you say "oxymoron?"

free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (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).

slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

The nation of DataGenesis has no problem with this resolution in the ideal it attempts to portray.

However, the resolution is imprecise and does not require nations to ACHIEVE anything regarding freedom of press. The resolution only requires nations to "urge" etc to undertake certain practises.

A resolution is a law. It needs foundation upon which to impliment law in the country. This resolution, while appropriate in it's ideals, lacks the necessary specificity to be a valid resolution and thus it shall be the nation of DataGenesis' vote to vote nay.

Foreign Minister,
DataGenesis.

You lot really don't get it, do you?

6+ weeks typing this resolution? Maybe more time should have been spent on content instead of punctuation.

A resolution is a law. It needs foundation upon which to impliment law in the country. This resolution, while appropriate in it's ideals, lacks the necessary specificity to be a valid resolution and thus it shall be the nation of DataGenesis' vote to vote nay.


A resolution is an international statement.
Period.

Since laws are subject to change, when the level of rhetoric in UN resolutions gets unbearable, nations leave the UN. They are replaced by others, but the stance that a resolution should be POWERFUL and strongly worded is short-sighted.

OOC: Visit the real UN's web site and look at the language of real UN resolutions. Words like Encourages and Urges are used all of the time. Why? Simple, if the UN started ordering the United States around by "law" or "force" the United States would pack up its bags and leave. This in fact happened with the League of Nations. The League of Nations forced Japan to give up Manchuria, and the Japanese response was: fine, we'll leave and grab whatever else we want, because you are powerless to stop us.

In any event, if your complaint is about the language of the UN resolution, you really should look at what real world resolutions look like. This resolution is actually one of the better written ones that this game has seen. If you want to show my otherwise, I'll be here.

If instead your issue is with the idea of Freedom of Speech, let's talk about that instead and stop worrying about words like "urges". There is plenty to talk about here, and I think we can learn from each other. :)

10kMichael

The Nation of DataGenesis does "get it".


First, it makes free press law on an international level.

Second, it guides nations in making the appropriate outline to go about a free press standard, that way, all nations can conform easier by their own national government through ways in which they know are best and easily accomplished, as all governments knows how change really works within its body.


To the Nation of DataGenesis' knowledge, the resolution does not make free press law. The first paragraph and second are well meaning introductions.

The third paragraph simply condemns those countries without freedom of press.

Point one is simply an appeal. The resolution should be formed in the substance of "All member nations will act legislation to allow freedom of press". In it current form it simply allows countries to "appeal" to do so.

It also requires countries to meddle in other countries affairs with point 2. DataGenesis believes that this is not a valid function of the UN.

The other points are valid, as is the idea in general. It simply is not phrased in a way that our Nation will vote for.

6+ weeks typing this resolution? Maybe more time should have been spent on content instead of punctuation.

Bah, you're new here, so perhaps you've not seen how things work.

Many of us post DRAFT proposals here in the forums and ask for comments. This process takes several weeks, but sadly most nations (players) have short attention spans and only offer up comments when they see a resolution at vote.

In any event, the proposals can be changed while they are discussed as a DRAFT only. After a few changes, the author will submit his / her proposal to the proposal queue.

There it will sit for about 3 days, while UN Delegates (notice I'm not one) will have a chance to endorse the proposal. When around 140-150 UN Delegates have endorsed the proposal it moves to the resolution queue, where I've seen resolutions sit for a week or two.

After a few days to weeks in the queue, the resolution comes to a vote ... and suddenly people who have been here all this time act shocked when they see the resolution. The resolution can't be changed at this time, but it is always good form to still make amended suggestions, so future resolutions can take note of what people really like and dislike.

If a proposal fails to get enough endorsements, typically authors resubmit the proposal after very minor edits. Most resolutions take a few iterations in the proposal queue before becoming resolutions. Getting 150 endorsements is much harder than you'd guess.
In any event, this thread should really be focused on the topic: Freedom of Press, not how long it took to get here. My apologies.

10kMichael

OOC: Visit the real UN's web site and look at the language of real UN resolutions. Words like Encourages and Urges are used all of the time. Why? Simple, if the UN started ordering the United States around by "law" or "force" the United States would pack up its bags and leave. This in fact happened with the League of Nations. The League of Nations forced Japan to give up Manchuria, and the Japanese response was: fine, we'll leave and grab whatever else we want, because you are powerless to stop us.

OOC: I have visited the UN web site, and I have viewed their resolutions. I am currently a law student studying human rights so have a experince in the area. You are correct, resolutions do have the "huffing and puffing" of "affirming" "recognising" etc. For example, we take latest resolution on Iraq from the Security Council.

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement

It does have phrases such as "Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Iraq,", HOWEVER, it also states

"DECIDES that in implementing, as circumstances permit, their mandate to
assist the Iraqi people and government, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), as requested by the Government of Iraq, SHALL....."

Not that it says "SHALL" and "DECIDES". There is a positive obligation on nations to do something.

As I said, I have no problem with the substance of the resolution. It is simply not in a form that I would adopt.

In a notion of goodwill toward the nation of Tuesday Heights the Nation of DataGenesis, after noting the Nation of Mikitivity's comments that substance is more important than form, will change its vote to Aye, hoping that the resolution is in fact specific enough to be appropriate.

The Nation of DataGenesis maintains its earlier objections but hopes this position is satisfactory.

Greetings. A new proposal has been submitted. Although freedom of the press is certainly a valuable thing, closer inspection of this proposal reveals that it is something much more than is claims.

Let's go through this...


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

Although it seems innocuous enough, certainly that is not something that could be legislated. If so, that would increase the governments activity in the press, yielding to potential abuse through propaganda.

a la FOX news, etc? I can see what you mean. HOWEVER, is it not also the right of the individual to decide what they believe for themselves?
Or is it the case of not leaving matches out for children to play with i.e. people can't be trusted for themselves?


"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."

Same problem. Forcing the press to go to specific places and to cover specific things is a way to steer our world into a 'Big Brother' scenario.


It doesn't need the press to do that. Governments themselves cause the world to become a "Big Brother" scenario. In fact, some governments pride themselves on being "Big Brother". It's a big part of their policy. The only thing a free press would do is tell the people what their government is doing. You're right about that in SOME contexts i.e. some free press would be propaganda, but that again is up to the individual to decide what is and isn't, surely? Or have humanity proved themselves unworthy of being able to make the right decisions for themselves?


"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."

That is already the case.


Not all countries promote the reaches of press. The idea of the more restrictive/dictatorial countries is that they don't promote the expansion of ANYTHING without the government's prior knowledge of what is going to be show/covered etc.


"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."

And finally the truth is revealed. Funds and government assistance. Surely our people don't want yet another area of their lives where the government tries to abuse its powers.


I didn't see the word "trade agreements" in there. I'm glad you spotted that. What does "Trade Agreement" have to do with this? Or is the necessary trade agreement only within the capacity of news trade?

Funds are, of course, a part of any new venture. Very few - if any - ventures will happen without some form of funding.

I think that this issue needs to be worded better before it is put on the table. I like the apparent idea behind it, but I'd like a few of these little unseen points ironed out (e.g. "Trade agreements").

Imriland

OOC: I have visited the UN web site, and I have viewed their resolutions. I am currently a law student studying human rights so have a experince in the area. You are correct, resolutions do have the "huffing and puffing" of "affirming" "recognising" etc. For example, we take latest resolution on Iraq from the Security Council.

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement

It does have phrases such as "Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Iraq,", HOWEVER, it also states

"DECIDES that in implementing, as circumstances permit, their mandate to
assist the Iraqi people and government, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), as requested by the Government of Iraq, SHALL....."

Not that it says "SHALL" and "DECIDES". There is a positive obligation on nations to do something.

As I said, I have no problem with the substance of the resolution. It is simply not in a form that I would adopt.

That I can understand, though your later post (and this one) did bring a smile to my face. Thank you!

OOC: In the case of the Iraq resolution, notice that the "DECIDES" bit authorizes the United Nations itself to do something, but is not worded such that it enforces a decision upon a sovereign state. Power words can still be used in UN resoultions, but they aren't used to over-ride domestic issues (with a few exceptions). The bottom line is IMHO NationStates would do well to have a few more nations played by people who take an interest in law and diplomacy, because things like abortion rights, gun control, gay marriage, etc. in the real world would have HUGE political costs to even mention in an international setting.

10kMichael

TAG for later... off to bed and I work all day tomorrow... be back sometime tomorrow night, if it's urget, IM me on AIM at skytowerpoet to discuss.

Dishevelled Consumates applauds the efforts of those who put this resolution together. Their insight into the problem is genius. However the foresight of the resolution has a minor flaw in it.

When we open up any market within a new region it is at first flooded, however, technology and business strategy are the name of the game and those who are best at it win all the prize. So those nations go from one form of news to many and back to one.

Dishevelled Consumates despises monopolies and will not tolerate them without government regulation which is voted on voluntarily by its people. Without a clause in the resolution that solves the monopoly problem Dishevelled Consumates and its fellow regional nations of Jerebe will be hesitant to vote yes for this resolution.

No. Not improper wording. Perfect wording, thank-you very much. It was very carefully worded, as I worked on this proposal/resolution for 6+ weeks. It's perfect in everyway, hence the fervor I spent in getting it to be voted on, and since it will most likely pass, I need not worry about what everyone else tries to read into it.

I'm not saying I don't want dissent. I welcome it, however, it's misplaced, and I fail to see what lines you aren't reading into, just like everyone else.

Maybe I am just a presumptious English major, but nevertheless, all issues brought up have been properly addressed in time. Yours is no different.

I believe the idealism in this has gone too far. Nothing is perfect. Nothing. To use that phrase condemns this piece in my eyes and many others.

Secondly, I find the tone of "and since it will most likely pass...not worry about what everyone else tries to read into it," to be more condescending then anything I have read on here. Personally, I am disgusted that you will not use an open mind and take into consideration not only the words of those trying to BETTER the proposition, but your own words as well.

6+ weeks is alot of time to be spending on anything that does not need it. Being as you are, an English major, then I hope you will appreciate this. My 5th grade English teacher said, "If you are writing a book, leave out the last chapter and call it a mystery." To me, that simply means, keep it short. I think TOO MUCH time has been spent and that the basic idea of the proposal has been lost.

I think a re-evaluation of priorities is needed.

6+ weeks is alot of time to be spending on anything that does not need it. Being as you are, an English major, then I hope you will appreciate this. My 5th grade English teacher said, "If you are writing a book, leave out the last chapter and call it a mystery." To me, that simply means, keep it short. I think TOO MUCH time has been spent and that the basic idea of the proposal has been lost.

I think a re-evaluation of priorities is needed.

Please see my earlier post about the 6+ weeks.

You are taking Tuesday Heights literally when their nation meant that the proposal itself has been on this forum for 6+ weeks. That does not mean a staff of 20 paralegals and lawyers have been working around the clock for 6+ weeks on this document.

The maddening part is that for weeks there have only been positive comments, so I understand Tuesday Heights' surprise over the sudden opposition in the forums!

That said, let's continue along your line of reasoning ... you state that your government feels that the basic idea of the resolution was lost in the DRAFT stage, no? If so, what would you describe would be a basic idea to which your nation could find acceptable.

We don't need specifics, just what do you think the basic idea should be.

10kMichael

Alright then.

A basic idea that my govenrment would find acceptible, is what I will call a half and half scenario.

The press should be granted some freedoms, while others should be denied.

I believe that to be the most basic view my government to take. I hope this satisfies your request.

Alright then.

A basic idea that my govenrment would find acceptible, is what I will call a half and half scenario.

The press should be granted some freedoms, while others should be denied.

I believe that to be the most basic view my government to take. I hope this satisfies your request.

It does. And was very clear. :)

Your nation's position has been stated by others as well.

10kMichael

It does. And was very clear. :)

Your nation's position has been stated by others as well.

10kMichael

Thank you for your kindness on the matter.

If my governments position has been stated by "many others" as you say, then how is it nothing has come of it?

I don't care if this resoltion passes. I will continue to control the preses this proposal only APPEALS to me to give freedom of the press. I intend to ignore this appeal. Sorted.

I don't care if this resoltion passes. I will continue to control the preses this proposal only APPEALS to me to give freedom of the press. I intend to ignore this appeal. Sorted.

If my governments position has been stated by "many others" as you say, then how is it nothing has come of it?

Because the writer disagrees?

Just because you have expressed concerns doesn’t mean they have to be taken into account. Maybe they should but they don't have to.

Now the resolution is up it can't be changed, it's all or nothing. The only way you can effect it is by pressing 'yes' or 'no'.

(Dose not in any way shape or form represent the writer/s)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

This resolution is getting a lot of support.

We urge all member states to read the proposal thoroughly before supporting it as it is flawed and would allow complete freedom to the press and offer the state no control for reasons of national security or personal privacy.

This resolution is getting a lot of support.

We urge all member states to read the proposal thoroughly before supporting it as it is flawed and would allow complete freedom to the press and offer the state no control for reasons of national security or personal privacy.

No it dosn't.

I don't care if this resoltion passes. I will continue to control the preses this proposal only APPEALS to me to give freedom of the press. I intend to ignore this appeal. Sorted.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

I feel too much fredom of the press lends itself to one sided news releases, as in the majority of the liberal press in the US today. The so called freedom of the press allows anyone to say anything and spin the truth to convince all readers (viewers) to see things in the writers point of view. It is very easy to twist facts and put out statistics without having to back them up with truth. Therefore so called news media can dictate public opinion by publishing slander and twisted truths just to get their ideas into the uneducated minds of the masses. A small percentage opf population actually knows what is going on and lives by emotions "dictated" by the press. There should be recourse for news releases that are twisted to meet ideology. The news should be just that "NEWS" not propagana for one side or the other.

Thank you for your kindness on the matter.

If my governments position has been stated by "many others" as you say, then how is it nothing has come of it?

We can't make changes to a resolution, only draft proposals. Otherwise you'd see a number of us trying to address your concerns.

Furthermore, there are nations that are voting against this resolution, and based on comments here and in the regional forums, I'm positive many of those negative votes are from nations who want a middle ground.

My own regional delegate voted no, but the majority in my region wanted to vote in favour. As of last night he changed his nation's vote to yes (along with the 450+ votes he gets), based on the will of the majority and some arguments in favour that my nation and others have been posting.

But this does not mean that the issue should not be revisited in a future resolution / proposal. If there are points that nations feel should be addressed, I think many of us are ultimately interested in getting information into the hands of people -- the ultimate decision makers.

10kMichael

Classic...why not drop the wanna-be educated attempts..

It is a important line from the book 1984...maybe you heard of it? Clearly not.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!!!!

Can you say "oxymoron?"

free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (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).

slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Sounds responsible and progressive to me!

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.

First of all, when discussing a nation’s fundamental right’s (not the rights of individuals within that nation), there is no evidence of any violation of a Nation’s right to freely express itself exists currently. Conversely this legislation leads one to believe that the purpose of this legislation is to change this vital and fundamental National right to allow only “the truth and knowledge” as apparently the UN sees it to be allowed. As far as “every human’s right to the truth and knowledge of one’s given country and one’s perception of other countries”, who is going to define what the truth and knowledge is as here alleged. Are we going to leave that up to the “unbiased” press, or is the UN proposing to become the new “Grandfather Nannie State” to monitor speech? How are we sure that only “objective members of society” are going to be allowed to give “an unbiased account”?

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.

DEEPLY DISTURBED that we are allowing the UN to judge the past “quality of information on the state of the union in every member nation”. Where is there a quantifiable lack of knowledge? If you are a member of a nation that is starving to death you have no idea that that is happening? Furthermore, how does “freedom of the press give precedence to expanding the knowledge base”? Certainly, it would help expand the principles and ideas of the press, but over time the press has a way of becoming biased itself. They are in the same social circles, hire people who think like they do, and cover stories with the exact same mistakes and false logic, etc.

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.

What about my nation’s right to only allow the truth to be told? What about laws that bear consequences for printing material without checking its accuracy first, or worse yet what about libel laws? What if my country wants to have “strict control of what can and cannot be reported by all forms of the press”, that simply can be proven to be lies intentionally told or not?

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.

Again “the full story” as who defines it?
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.

Well, all, it made quorum and will be the next resolution up for vote.

Let's start the debate, ladies and gentlemen.

On this issue others have spoken. This looks and feels like a tax. So is the UN going to be knocking on our doors for donations, or is this mandatory? How did this get out of the budget committee, anyway? The UN has currently no budget, so where is this money coming from?

This legislation is in all probability going to pass, but it is only because very few people are really going to read and understand the implications of it.

This Nations vote is no

it must be recognised, that the security, internal affairs, and defence issues that arise from this, are too costly.

for instance, reporters given full freedoms in the combat zone will be a tacticaly disaster! interception of media is a basic method of inteligence gathering, and reporters reporting troop numbers, maps, movements etc. could cause the defeat of a nation.

Reporters able to report on immigration control, will obviously outline govt mistakes, causing potential asylum seekers, and illegals to find an easy route right through immigration, and also allow terrorists into the country, by providing all the information they need.

National information may be published, and a simple leak of information not guarded by any protection of information acts, which will become the way with this legislation, could cost the nation dearly in life, money, and safety.

I urge you to vote against this legislation, it will bring too much cost, too much terror, and too much pain to all UN nations.

I like it, I am going to write an article for this on NBC. Check it out at http://s7.invisionfree.com/NBC for more info.

I like it, I am going to write an article for this on NBC. Check it out at http://s7.invisionfree.com/NBC for more info.

That is an excellent site.

10kMichael

I urge you to vote against this legislation, it will bring too much cost, too much terror, and too much pain to all UN nations.

Explain that to me; I fail to see how free press does this.

It was already explained in this person's post, as it is also explained numerous times before. Just read with an open mind.

Just read with an open mind.

I do. I fail to see the relevance of how this opens nation's up to terrorists and such; it does not. Truth and knowledge are not terror weapons or Capitalist weapons or anything of the sort.

Think, man, Think.

If you were a person who wanted to sneak into my nation, and blow up some important building. And my media agencies had the freedoms you propose, they would report on live television, flaws made by my govenrment in all aspects, INCLUDING that of border security. Therefore you would simply tune in to that report, and you would know how to easily get into my natino undetected.

Or, if our nations were at war, and your media was with your troops, I would simply tell my generals to watch your news stations. Your media would report their locations, and the images would show amounts of troops, and what weaponry. I would simply launch a strike at that area with the appropriate power and equipment to take out your forces.

You see? By allowing this, you allow yourself to be possibly destroyed.

Well, the Grand Duchy Of Zabza votes Nay. Allowing free press should be the nation's decision.

Then you shouldn't be in the UN.

I voted "NAY."

Free-press, schmee-press! I say o-press and be happy you are allowed to decide what you eat twice a day.

*As a note: The poll does not seem to be proportionate to the actual voting. Conclusion: the "Nays" are more pro-active than the "Yays."

Nay. The Empire of Akrelia does not wish to expose its citizens to informations that are unnecessary for them to know. Should the resolution come to pass, we shall quit the UN.

Theres a lot of people who seem to think freedom of press is a good thing??? Que??? Why would you want to tell your people the truth, it doesnt make any sense, people are stupid and cannot handle the truth, that is why our proganda minister, Juan Kerr, tells the people of Styrland what to think. When people express views I, sa King, dont like I delete them! Comeon other countries surely you dont want your people knowing the truth about what you get up to. Use our Monkey system. Take a monkey and when they say, "What about...." reply with, "Look at the monkey, look at the scary monkey" Works every time!

By allowing this, you allow yourself to be possibly destroyed.

By allowing ANYONE into your country, you attract terrorism. So, yes, this might attract terrorism, but so do a million other scenarios you're[i] failing to address and add her.

*As a note: The poll does not seem to be proportionate to the actual voting. Conclusion: the "Nays" are more pro-active than the "Yays."

Well, if you look at the voting on the UN page itself, the yays are a lot more than the nays... so, what are you suggesting?

Should the resolution come to pass, we shall quit the UN.

Good, then, we probably don't want nations such as your own who can't compromise and adhere to rules governing an international body like the United Nations.

Why would you want to tell your people the truth, it doesnt make any sense, people are stupid and cannot handle the truth, that is why our proganda minister, Juan Kerr, tells the people of Styrland what to think.

People [i]can and do handle the truth. Your people are in desperate need of someone to come in there and let them know what is truly going on then letting your dictator-like individual control of each citizen continue.

Lindim is a firm believer in the rights of press and the rights of the people.

However, if a nation, and that does not apply to us, wants to be isolationist, this does not allow them to do so; it forces them to tell their news corporations to send reporters overseas, telling them what to do. And that is unnacceptable. By the very nature of this resolution, it involves governments more closely with their presses, thus defeating the purpose of it.

We appreciate and supports Tuesday Heights attempts to spread and encourage the freeing of people from constrained rights, but this resolution will work against that.

Thank you.

By allowing this, you allow yourself to be possibly destroyed.

By allowing ANYONE into your country, you attract terrorism. So, yes, this might attract terrorism, but so do a million other scenarios [i]you're[i] failing to address and add her.

This resolution deals with freedom of the press, and nothing else. How could I begin to discuss the various ways of how terrorists can infiltrate nations, when it has nothing to do with the subject?

Your proposal is based on freedom of the press, so I will argue against it, using examples ALSO based on freedom of the press.

Stay focused in your defense.

*As a note: The poll does not seem to be proportionate to the actual voting. Conclusion: the "Nays" are more pro-active than the "Yays."

I may be wrong here, but it seems like to me that the poll is an indication of what people who actually read and think about the issue have decided, as opposed to the herding masses that vote at the UN.

I know that this involves "mechanics", but as the Nannie State of the UN maybe we should require people to read the stuff before the vote on it.

I seem to recall that this has been tried before someplace (fumbling through some documents), and ruled unconstitutional, but hey, having an informed UN might be a good thing.

This is a good resolution
I like the idea
But I cannot agree with it

"1. APPEALS to all member nations to enact legislature to allow immediate freedom of the press within their borders."
You cannot institute freedom of press forcefully onto every country. You have to let them have options.

"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."
What makes me worried is the part, "bring back the full story to its citizens". No matter what, there will be bias. The best way is to actually have the citizens witness it themselves. But that's not possible. Full story you say? Do you think that during the Iraq Invasion, we obtained the FULL story?

"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."
Every nation should have variety of news sources... No matter where it comes from. The government or the underground. But with these difference, you already created a different story. My question is, how are you going to tell the people the TRUE story, not just different bias.

"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 do not see why you need to write this... People still come anyway to obtain news...


My overall conclusion, how are you going to deal with bias?
People do not think alike
therefore, it is virtually impossible to get the true story
Write a better resolution, then I will support it

We still resent the way this is going, and fear it infringes on our sovereign rights as a nation. As previously stated, it seems that this is another UN resolution which shall get through without any thought by some nations, simply because people point and click.

It seems a good idea, but it isn't, and we're flabberghasted that the amount of nations not happy with this proposal far outweigh the nations which are pro. Again, point and click syndrom. "don't debate, just vote for".

We admire the strength of feeling of the very few nations which seem open to support this proposal, but nothing has been said that allays our initial fears that a free press would create a miasma upon such nations that are rather happy as they are, thank you, and don't require outside, shall we say, "help" to let the populace know what's going on.

This proposal worries us more and more as it garners more pro votes.

It's not an issue that is worth leaving the U.N. over, but we're still slightly fretful.

Love, light and peace,
William Jacks,
Dept. of Culture and Media,
Rvolt.

Greetings. A new proposal has been submitted. Although freedom of the press is certainly a valuable thing, closer inspection of this proposal reveals that it is something much more than is claims.

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

Although it seems innocuous enough, certainly that is not something that could be legislated. If so, that would increase the governments activity in the press, yielding to potential abuse through propaganda.

"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."

Same problem. Forcing the press to go to specific places and to cover specific things is a way to steer our world into a 'Big Brother' scenario.

"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."

That is already the case.

"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."

And finally the truth is revealed. Funds and government assistance. Surely our people don't want yet another area of their lives where the government tries to abuse its powers.

So my friends, I am sad to say I will be voting against this proposal.

I bid you peace.

I agree. While I favor the idea behind this proposal, I am concerned about its vagaries and about the partial government establishment of press implied, and so I have voted against it.

The press should be controlled by the government. For as it can be seen in other countries, the press cares only about getting a great story for high ratings. The press cares nothing about the possibly consequences of its irresponsible reporting. Thus, my vote will be against the resolution.

The press should be controlled by the government. For as it can be seen in other countries, the press cares only about getting a great story for high ratings.

Not all press are like that.

OOC:
Sorry, guys, I worked all day and am off to bed. Just wanted to let you know, I should get back to this tomorrow night, hopefully.

Please name some examples of where the press are responsible in countries where the press enjoys a lot of freedom.

As the newly appointed delegate from my region, I have to vote Nay to this resolution.

It is a clear infringement on the rights of the individual nation state. This should be a matter of decision for each individual nation who can best assess their own security concerns and that of its citizen, rather than an international body who cannot possibly take the time nor spend the reasources to investigate the situations in all nations such a resolution may impact upon.

For such a broad resolution to be made without such an investigation would be careless and perhaps endangering to citizens of many nations. My position is that a nation has the responsibility to protect its citizens, this resolution makes that responsibility more difficult for some and should be voted down or withdrawn.

*As a note: The poll does not seem to be proportionate to the actual voting. Conclusion: the "Nays" are more pro-active than the "Yays."

Well, if you look at the voting on the UN page itself, the yays are a lot more than the nays... so, what are you suggesting?


I am not "suggesting" anything, I am merely pointing out that the Nays seem more active than the Yays in voicing their oppinion.

By allowing the media to decide what is to be covered, you have a rush for ratings, and more-often-then-not, it is not to the benefit of the viewer.

Take a look at the media of today; mainly of liberal viewpoints, reporting disasters or tragedies; anything involving death, destruction, or mayhem.

I don't believe I even need to discuss the paparazzi and how easily the 'Freedom of the Press" is contorted to allow any photographer intrude upon the privacy of others, mainly celebrities in this case; all to make a quick buck for a no-name tabloid, an utter piece of garbage that the freedom of the press allows to transverse across the aisles of checkout lines everywhere.

There needs to be a more solid foundation of information from both sides for any argument covered in the media, and there needs to be a limitation as to how far they are allowed 'to go'.

I vote no, and strongly urge there be a bill outlining the limitations of the media.

The Empyrean Citadel is deeply troubled by this Bill, and the rubber-stamping that has happened over the past few weeks by the UN (although there was a Bill recently that was just plain poorly-worded that failed to pass).

Sadly, I feel this Bill will come to pass, as well, despite voting against it.

The UN is for regulating the behavior of the international community as well as setting out certain basic human rights, not for telling the governments how they have to spend portions of their budgets. All that is, is foolish, 'my nose in your business' garbage that has been spread like an infection.

The UN is for regulating the behavior of the international community as well as setting out certain basic human rights, not for telling the governments how they have to spend portions of their budgets. All that is, is foolish, 'my nose in your business' garbage that has been spread like an infection.

No it isn't. What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I find this resolution fantastic, but that it would be much more delicious on rye bread with a dash of salt.

(And Tuesday Heights is a bit of a suck.)

Yay free speech!!!

*Runs out of the room in terror*

The UN is for regulating the behavior of the international community as well as setting out certain basic human rights, not for telling the governments how they have to spend portions of their budgets. All that is, is foolish, 'my nose in your business' garbage that has been spread like an infection.

No it isn't. What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I believe that this was a statement of opinion, not a statement of mechanics. Lydania has ever right to believe that the UN has overstepped its bounds. I share that opinion.

[quote=Tuesday Heights]
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.


I have decided to be proactive with the current legislation, and send out my press (spies) to investigate the Deadlines of Tuesday Heights’ slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining, as well as the Commonwealth of the Dark Basement’s slick and highly efficient black market in Arms Manufacturing. I have found and am proud to report that Tuesday Heights is sending Uranium to the Dark Basement and the two of them are providing The Chemistry of 923 with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the ozone hole, and kill everything but cockroaches. They are going to use these weapons (allegedly) to blackmail and terrorize the rest of the world. This feel good legislation is merely a front to cover up their real plans.

The UN is for regulating the behavior of the international community as well as setting out certain basic human rights, not for telling the governments how they have to spend portions of their budgets.

Actually, that's exactly what this resolution seeks to do. It is an INTERNATIONAL and all UN nations must act accordingly should it pass, as it is, without complaining about whether or not their budgets can handle it, because that is the true spirit of community.


*As a note: The poll does not seem to be proportionate to the actual voting. Conclusion: the "Nays" are more pro-active than the "Yays."

Well, if you look at the voting on the UN page itself, the yays are a lot more than the nays... so, what are you suggesting?


I am not "suggesting" anything, I am merely pointing out that the Nays seem more active than the Yays in voicing their oppinion.

Ah, all right. Yes, I noticed that with most UN resolutions though, that the nay-sayers are much more active than those that agree with it.

OOC: Since NONE of the comments made by Laissez-faireia have been neither discussed with me or role-played by either side, I ask that you all IGNORE it per NS role-play etiquette, thank-you.

I have no problems with the resolution, other than the 4th part. We should not fund anything. If people really wanted to read the newspaper, they would buy one. Therefore, the market will spring its own press. However, in order for the government to fund the press, it must first take that money from someone else. In addition, a press that receives money from the government isn't likely to cover stories that show the government in a poor light. So a government funded press will be biased, to say the least. In a capitalist setting, even if the press has been bought, there will still be different viewpoints expressed, simply because people are willing to pay for those views.

Our nation, a small, isolated archipeligo, recently came into the technology that will allow us to communicate with nations beyond our borders. Out local one sheet paper, the Glaston Grog Times, for years printed on paper made from coconut husks and ink made from hops, is jumping at the chance to publish world wide. The publisher seems to think that the daily comings and goings of the revered Boars of the island will make for an interesting read, and we shall not stop him in this. We all feel that people should be able to publish what they want, when they want it, without question... as long as it's not something that will endanger the welfare of the people of the nation. This is a huge loophole, and one that needs to be used wisely, lest we hang ourselves with it. It can only be used with the appropriate checks and balances...

We vote YES to this resolution.

We should not fund anything.

Wrong.

If your country has no means to provide your people with the media in one form or another, then, yes, funding needs to be used to act in compliance to this proposal.

Simple as that.

OOC: Since NONE of the comments made by Laissez-faireia have been neither discussed with me or role-played by either side, I ask that you all IGNORE it per NS role-play etiquette, thank-you.

How quickly we abandon the concept of free speech when it does not meet our purposes! Over etiquette even! What about hate speech, or political incorrect speech? Isn't IGNOREing my comments just another form of sensorship? You have just proved that you don't really support your own resolution.

Greetings to All and Sundry,

This is a good idea that has such a bad delivery that it should be rejected until a better Resolution can be drafted and passed by the UN. Were this just a simple case of just Freedom of (the) Press, I’d be in favour, but the wording of the Resolution itself is so badly done that it demands being rejected.

Section 2 urging all Nations to send their press to foreign nations and conflicts is not Free Press but Government legislating the Free Press to do something that their budget and scope might not allow. It might even result in the Government closing down media outlets that cannot meet this requirement because of the local or national coverage basis.

Section 3 requires the Government to get involved with the Free Press, promotion and expansion, resulting in what would become a State Press or State backed Press, supplanting any existing Free Press.

Section 4 requires that the Government step in with funding and technical support for the Free Press, which flies in the face of the whole notion of a Free Press. The fact that Trade Agreements now must have the Free Press included into them, while ambiguous, could be interpreted as only allowing UN States to trade with other UN States. It could also be interpreted as meaning that foreign media giants now have complete and free access to your media market. Worse, as the Government you are obliged by this Resolution to financially support that foreign media giant.

Except for the odd dictatorship, most people in my Region felt that while they agreed with the sentiments of the Resolution’s title, the actual points of the text were too badly written and contradictory to support. Unfortunately, at the moment the vote appears to be swaying clearly in favour of those who didn’t read the Resolution clearly and thought the title was kinda neat (and probably more than a few just thought the Resolution was about the right to go to a gym and work out with weights). As for the writer’s claims that they worked over 6 weeks on this draft and are an English Major, as the main defence for their Resolution, I should think that an Officer of the British army would have a better defence. That and their military training must have been very demanding during that 6 weeks.

Grande Elector Bruce

The Green and Pleasant Dominion of The Bruce

Isn't IGNOREing my comments just another form of sensorship? You have just proved that you don't really support your own resolution.

Ignoring comments is only censorship when you are talking about a government or public agency that must provide a complete record of comments with respect to a specific issue / document.

A sovereign nation putting another nation in its ignore box is not only far removed from censorship, in many cases it is a very mature way to deal with an often immature nation ... case in point: what is the best way to deal with a troll? Everybody will tell you: ignore him / her.

Another reason to ignore a comment / reply here is often comments don't make sense.

Michael

First of all, the government and people of Mattikistan would like to express how pleased they are to have been accepted into your great union.
Now. Mattikistan has enjoyed free press for quite some time now, although none of the various media companies are government-funded. Thus we understand the importance of free press to a more enlightened people, and our virst vote has been a positive one.

hmmm....fredom of press works for me as long as it satys with in an ethical limit. Like i wouln't like ppl to start abusing others openly in the press or humiliating others political, social or religious beliefs. Or start using the press for a proxy war. Thats way too much...but other than that i am all for fredom of the press.
I would vote yes....if the press would agree to abstain from the above mentioned problems...

Isn't IGNOREing my comments just another form of sensorship? You have just proved that you don't really support your own resolution.

Ignoring comments is only censorship when you are talking about a government or public agency that must provide a complete record of comments with respect to a specific issue / document.

A sovereign nation putting another nation in its ignore box is not only far removed from censorship, in many cases it is a very mature way to deal with an often immature nation ... case in point: what is the best way to deal with a troll? Everybody will tell you: ignore him / her.

Another reason to ignore a comment / reply here is often comments don't make sense.

Michael

Most of the time, when you are being ignored you are still free to stay stuff. Unless people are forced into ignoring someone I don't see how that hurts freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn’t include forcing people to pay

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Isn't IGNOREing my comments just another form of sensorship? You have just proved that you don't really support your own resolution.

Ignoring comments is only censorship when you are talking about a government or public agency that must provide a complete record of comments with respect to a specific issue / document.

A sovereign nation putting another nation in its ignore box is not only far removed from censorship, in many cases it is a very mature way to deal with an often immature nation ... case in point: what is the best way to deal with a troll? Everybody will tell you: ignore him / her.

Another reason to ignore a comment / reply here is often comments don't make sense.

Michael

Most of the time, when you are being ignored you are still free to stay stuff. Unless people are forced into ignoring someone I don't see how that hurts freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn’t include forcing people to pay

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Agreed that in the NS sense of IGNOREing that is probably not sensorship. But read the reply carefully. Tuesday Heights is telling everyone to IGNORE my comments because I broke a rule of "etiquette". Maybe I should be banned from NS and the comments removed also?

OOC: not really, the RP side is different from the game itself.

The Principality of Zerona will vote Nay on Freedom of The Press.

Our Benevolent Dictator, Zero, has authorized me to make this statement:

He believes that he can best protect the happiness and well-being of his people by keeping them unaware of issues in which they have no control.

Ignorance can indeed be bliss, and nothing is more important than being happy.

In today's "real" world, millions of people suffer emotional upset every single day because of the prolliferation of information on topics which they have no good reason to worry about.

The Principality of Zerona has no interest in seeing the world-wide plaque of social protest spread to her shores. Our Beloved Leader knows what is best for Zerona, and upsetting the people about things they aren't equipped to understand is pointless and inhumane.

For the good of the people, please vote Nay.

Agreed that in the NS sense of IGNOREing that is probably not sensorship. But read the reply carefully. Tuesday Heights is telling everyone to IGNORE my comments because I broke a rule of "etiquette". Maybe I should be banned from NS and the comments removed also?

Tuesday Heights isn't trying to censor you, instead that nation is trying to influence you by cutting off your political ties. You and I are still free to communicate ...

That said, I'd encourage all UN representatives to show a bit more respect to this forum by cutting back some of the material you quote in your replies. As Angora Socks might say about messy telegrams, I will say this about messy posts: Many of us will read them, but the first thought that comes to mind is: "Why did this person not spend the time to clean up their post just a bit more?".

My point isn't that this is bad, but rather that the message can be lost or degraded when the post is messy looking.

10kMichael

Ladies and gentleman viewing this topic,

For those of you who are not in agreement with this soon-to-be resolution, I have created a retaliatory proposal to limit the damage done by this document.

The Proposal is named Freedom of the Press Revamped, and there is a forum topic under the same name. Please read and endorse this so we may stop worrying about this problem we have, and begin looking towards a solution.

I like it, I am going to write an article for this on NBC. Check it out at http://s7.invisionfree.com/NBC for more info.

Earlier I praised this organization for its news coverage. However, after haven read its articles concerning this very topic, I grew concerned. The reporting of NBC on this particular topic is not only opinionated, but its has presented a very one-sided editorial (opinion) on this debate as if it were an objective fact recounting.

That is fine though.

I think the site still demostrates the validity of the Freedom of Speech (which is essentially what we are all debating).

In this particular case NBC's political objective clearly includes making attacks on what that network and many here call "the sheep", and yet if you look at the independent UN poll of UN representatives and UN non-members shown here, the support for this resolution is split nearly even.

This is an important fact that was not taken into account by the NBC reports ... and yet, all of us are able to easily confirm this.

The objectivity in the press is not contained in individual articles, but in correctly using your human brain and learning to think for yourself. Check facts, look at additional sources, and think about it.

The freedom of speech is too important an ideal to trust to a single organization. I whole heartedly agree with that. But bearing that in mind, this resolution ultimately says that nations need to improve the flow of information. Clearly that is designed to get more information out there.

I urge many of you whom have voted no to reconsider your position in light of the NBC example.

Danke,
10kMichael

Thank-you all for your support and dissent of my resolution, which passed yesterday into UN law effective immediately.

Now get working on a responsibilities of the press resolution to curtail any abuses of the legislation...... :D

Now get working on a responsibilities of the press resolution to curtail any abuses of the legislation...... :D

I would... but that's up to each sovereign nation.

The Nation of DataGenesis sends cordial congratulations to Tuesday Heights for the passing of their resolution.

:D

We too offer our congratulations to Tuesday Heights for their achievement in having this important resolution tabled and passed. :)

White Lotus Eaters
UN Delegate, Urbanites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=urbanites)