NationStates Jolt Archive

UN delegates, I ask for your support on this proposal. It has already been submitted.
End to Book Censorship

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Mild Proposed by: Holtopia
Description: The UN has recognized the concern of several nations over Censorship in Print Media, specifically that of Books (the issue at hand will be hereafter known as Censorship).
The UN
RECOGNIZES that Print Media such as newspapers must employ censorship because of their broad target audience. Region-specified content laws shall apply to these and related mass print media.
RECOGNIZES that on the copyright page of some books, there is an intended age range for the book.
SUGGESTS that this age range should appear on the copyright page in all books, in bold type at least two points bigger than that of the largest on the page.
RECOGNIZES that children should not be unintentionally exposed to inappropriate pictures while browsing bookstores, libraries, etc.
SUGGESTS that books containing pictures of non-historical nudity or violence should carry a small red square in the lower left-hand corner on the back cover, signifying the presence of pictures that may be inappropriate for children (or adults not wanting to see such material).
RECOGNIZES that it is unfair for adults to deny children the use of these materials if they are present, unless the adult is a family member or guardian.
RECOGNIZES that withholding these privileges is Censorship, and thus against the principle of this resolution.
SUGGESTS that UN nations shall not put into practice measures to warn of content greater than those suggested, but may use comparable ones.
RECOGNIZES that writers of books should not have the original content, wording, and meaning of their work changed, except by their agreement.
SUGGESTS that UN nations shall not employ measures to replace inappropriate material, rather using the previously suggested warnings.
RECOGNIZES that some books will not fit these categories, but still be deemed inappropriate.
SUGGESTS that UN nations use judgement on these books, and develop other forms of warning, but those shall not be on the front cover, or take up more than two (2) square inches on either a back cover or one page inside the book.
SUGGESTS that UN nations disallow the banning of books, instead employing UN-suggested measures, thus promoting free flow of information and artistic expression, while still protecting children.

I think the title is technically false and will lead to this proposal's deletion, since it doesn't end censorship at all - indeed, it demands a certain level of censorship, makes strong provisions for more, and arguably sets no real limits on censorship whatsoever.

Also, the 'kids shouldn't be exposed to nudity' thing is a subjective moral view and is not held by many cultures. It has no place being aired in the UN.

I think the title is technically false and will lead to this proposal's deletion, since it doesn't end censorship at all - indeed, it demands a certain level of censorship, makes strong provisions for more, and arguably sets no real limits on censorship whatsoever.

Also, the 'kids shouldn't be exposed to nudity' thing is a subjective moral view and is not held by many cultures. It has no place being aired in the UN.

Rehochipe is right...the proposal should be renamed. Plus, morals are subjective and thus shouldn't be aired out in the U.N.

Rehochipe is always right.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

In reply to your allegation that morals are being forced on others, I offer a quote from my proposal.

RECOGNIZES that children should not be unintentionally exposed to inappropriate pictures while browsing bookstores, libraries, etc.
and a solution --

SUGGESTS that books containing pictures of non-historical nudity or violence should carry a small red square in the lower left-hand corner on the back cover, signifying the presence of pictures that may be inappropriate for children (or adults not wanting to see such material).
This does in no way force a view upon nations. Note I said "children should not be UNINTENTIONALLY exposed". I admit the word innapropriate is a bit morally charged, but I am not encouraging removal of any material, and my proposed measures will not encroach upon the artistic license of the cover art any more than would a barcode. It merely offers a warning for those who do NOT want to see such things.

You also say that my title is innapropriate. I am open to your ideas, but I am unsure why this constitutes censorship. If you read the entire proposal, I propose to BAN many forms of censorship.

RECOGNIZES that writers of books should not have the original content, wording, and meaning of their work changed, except by their agreement.
SUGGESTS that UN nations shall not employ measures to replace inappropriate material, rather using the previously suggested warnings.
SUGGESTS that UN nations disallow the banning of books, instead employing UN-suggested measures, thus promoting free flow of information and artistic expression, while still protect
ing children.

I disagree with the morality of this proposal. Before everyone thinks I'm some kind of retard please understand my reasoning.

When someone creates a document, or literature, or a picture, it becomes art, and art is free for any critisism, interpretation, or opinions the public may have to offer. And, the public has the right to execute such opinions.

If a publisher is allowed to use art in its publishing, it is allowed to alter the document, literature, or picture, as it believes as moral, and has the freedom to express it through publishing. If it is the opinion of the publisher that certain aspects are immoral, such as nudity or vulgarity, we cannot deny their freedom to express that. We cannot censor their opinions, too. It isn't changing the art, it is simply voicing it in a different way. We can't force them not to express their voice.

Thank you for taking the time to read my paragraph.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya.

RECOGNIZES that writers of books should not have the original content, wording, and meaning of their work changed, except by their agreement.

In reality, this offers very little protection. Agreement is easily acquired by pressure of one sort or another - say, in a McCarthyite environment, you could have the choice of either giving agreement to change your content, or being put on a government blacklist. Again, no publisher is obliged to publish a book - if the government controls or is highly influential upon all major publishers, they could simply decline to publish it and thus ban it by the back door. Nothing prevents an author for being punished for his publication: all it does is safeguard the book.

Books are very easily banned without having to ban them overtly.

Further, there are some books a government may, in my opinion, legitimately ban. Books containing state secrets are an obvious example, or books containing detailed instructions on how to construct nuclear weapons. This doesn't make a clear distinction; thus it endangers the governments that take it in good faith, while including gaping loopholes for those who wish to subvert it.

We'd love to see an effective anti-censorship document put in place, but this trips up quite a bit.

Rehochipe
Thank you. I hadn't considered that side of it. I concede. I'm new at this proposal writing thing. If this one doesn't go through (most likely, if it's really that flawed), I'll rework it.

This seems yet another attempt by yet another nation to mandate the moral and ethical development of other cultures.

I do not agree with this proposal, feeling that the State should have the final say in what is and is not allowed within their own borders when it comes to the censorship of material for any reason.

Therefore, should this matter come to quorum, I will adamantly fight its passing.

Nonsense Whited Fields! all literature should be allowed to be read by any individual. It increases thier reading profeciancy, heightens thier intellect,and above all, gives a person freedom to decide what or what not to believe. I have read Mein Kamf for instance, I sure as hell did not agree with Hitler at all, but it was damn interesting to see how the sick f**K thought and how he lived. It gave me alot more information about the man and a glimps of his twisted mind. A learning experiance at least.

Obviously my esteemed collegue has failed to actually READ the proposal that sits before us in debate.
For if he had, he would have realized that this proposal attempts to "restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency". Therefore, it leads to the argument in favor of censorship in some forms and under some circumstances.

My view is that censorship is an issue of ethics and morals, to be developed by independent States and not the grounds for law within the NS UN. I too feel that literature should be available to all without restriction, but I will NOT impose my views of the subject on other nations.

I was thinking about writing an issue about book-burning, and then, I saw that you made this issue; very, very good!

Rehochipe is always right.


My nation has come to value the opinions spoken by the people of Rehochipe, and has yet to see their wisdom fail us.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but a "traditional" format of many proposals often contains two major parts:

1) a justification / preamble, and
2) a recommendation / statement

If your proposal doesn't get enough endorsements, would you like some of us here to help rewrite exactly what you have in a more traditional form? It is *not* necessary, because proposals can have any form. But sometimes a bit of white space and numbered clauses or sections or articles help UN members and delegates alike focus on what you are really recommended and what is just a justification.

Though looking back at your proposal again, I'm pretty sure that "SUGGESTS" is your statement and "RECOGNIZES" is your justification. So you can completely ignore my suggestions if you like, because we shouldn't focus on the style as much as the content, right? :)

But I do think that your proposal would be an entertaining debate, on the grounds that you are actually trying to seek a middle ground.

On the subject of the proposal itself, I had one thought about newspaper censorship. My nation certainly feels that editors have the right to "edit" and establish a tone for their papers, but that the government shouldn't really control what is put in a paper unless there is some overwhelming national security or civil liberty that is at stake.

A classic example: imagine that a man catches a bugler robbing a home with a toy gun. While the newspaper might want to run an article publishing the name of the hero, it might not have the moral right to publish the name of the owners of the home that was robbed nor the robber. I'm just not sure how proactive a government should be in preventing these names being published ... certainly to prevent the paper from having the choice to publish is censorship, but to all the names to be published is taking away the freedoms of two other parties.

It isn't a clear cut issue in my mind ... interesting though.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but a "traditional" format of many proposals often contains two major parts:

1) a justification / preamble, and
2) a recommendation / statement

If your proposal doesn't get enough endorsements, would you like some of us here to help rewrite exactly what you have in a more traditional form? It is *not* necessary, because proposals can have any form. But sometimes a bit of white space and numbered clauses or sections or articles help UN members and delegates alike focus on what you are really recommended and what is just a justification.
I WOULD like some help next time if you guys would be interested. This was my first proposal, and I just kind of jumped in without looking very hard at what was going on in the forums. I admit some of this stuff I wrote was a little off, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. I thank you and Rehochipe for your offers, and I will gladly take you up on them.
Yay. I'm a loved (or at least not loathed) newbie.
:D

OK, the second thing to do after you've picked a topic for your proposal is to consider / think about the category. This time you picked moral decency, which fits with newspaper censorship and putting suggested reader ages on your books. But IIRC the Freedom of the Press may have been a Human Rights resolution.

Sometimes I pick a category after I've written the entire proposal, which means we need to go and find a prior resolution's format to "borrow". I usually think there are four major different styles: what I call the "Whereas" traditional resolutions, UN styled resolutions, international styled treaties, and freeform. All are a good start.

Ok whited fields I'm an idiot...*bows head in shame* that's what I get for assuming and being lazy. I support this fully.