NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bujoldyaran government is engaged in drafting a resloution on Freedom of the Press to put before the UN. We would welcome feedback from other members of the UN on the an important question: that of whether the resolution should impose a complete ban on censorship, or if not, what areas governments should be permitted to censor.

We would also welcome feedback on the wording of the proposal, in particular anything that delegates think might weaken our argument.

We will not welcome feedback that says "I'm not going to support this resolution whatever you do". The place for that is the "vote against" option if it ever gets that far.

Anyway, the current draft, which has hitherto only been seen by nations in the BookCrossing region, is as follows:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

NOTING that oppressive regimes often gain the support of their people by deception and by suppression of the truth concerning their activities;

RECOGNISING that a citizen of any nation is not truly free to make decisions unless he or she has access to information pertinent to those decisions;

RECOGNISING also the right of every human being to seek happiness and fulfilment through self-expression,

RESOLVES that in all member nations:

1. The government shall not forbid or restrict the publication of any book or other textual or printed material, with the exception that the government may at its discretion restrict material that advocates or derives from the sexual exploitation of minors under the age of 18 years, and/or advocates committing violent acts against other human beings on the grounds of their race, nationality, sex, sexuality, religion or linguistic background;

2. The government shall not forbid or restrict the sale or distribution of any book or other textual or printed material lawfully published in accordance with clause 1 above, save that the government may forbid the sale of sexually explicit and/or violent material to minors below an appropriate age;

3. If a book or other material be published unlawfully, the government shall not make a public spectacle of the destruction or recovery of copies of the material, punish the author(s) or publisher(s) with a disproportionate sentence, nor confiscate or destroy equipment or material beyond what is necessary to prevent further distribution of the unlawful material;

4. The government shall not vilify or otherwise discriminate against the author(s) or publisher(s) of any material, lawful or unlawful, based on the content of that material, save that material claiming that its author has committed a crime may be used in evidence when the author is charged with that crime;

5. The government shall enact legislation such that no individual or organisation may impede or disrupt the publication or distribution of any book or other textual or printed material that may lawfully be published in accordance with clause 1 above, except that the right to impede publication or distribution may be granted by a court as the result of a civil action.

Notes on the interpretation of the resolution:

The resolution places no requirement on member nations to impose censorship; it merely sets limits on the censorship that they may impose.

"Printed" encompasses all common meanings of the word, including but not limited to letterpress, computer hard copy, xerography and photographic enlargements.

A minor under the age of 18 means a person who is both a minor and less than 18 years old. In a country where the age of legal majority is more than 18 years, this refers only to persons under 18; in a country where the age of legal majority is less than 18, this refers only to minors. Age restrictions for the sale and purchase of sexually explicit and violent material are to be similarly interpreted, with no such restrictions applying to persons who have attained their legal majority.

"Advocating" a violent act means actually expressing the view that such an act is a good thing. For example, a book that merely described how to manufacture weapons, but did not suggest that they be used to commit violent acts, could not be banned under the terms of this resolution.

It's always a good idea to read the list of past resolutions before proposing a new one. Start here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=62

I have several times attempted to trawl through all the past passed resolutions, but not got as far as that.

In my defence, though, I will say that resolution 63 is about news media, while my resolution is about publishing, book-banning and things. Maybe I need a new title.

Suggestions, please?

"Freedom of Literacy"?

In general I support this proposal, but there are one or two tiny issues I would either like you to clarify, or to (to be honest) alter the wording on :}


1. The government shall not forbid or restrict the publication of any book or other textual or printed material, with the exception that the government may at its discretion restrict material that advocates or derives from the sexual exploitation of minors under the age of 18 years, and/or advocates committing violent acts against other human beings on the grounds of their race, nationality, sex, sexuality, religion or linguistic background;


The age of consent and majority in TilEnca is 14, so this clause would have a dramatic impact on some of our literature. However if you change "under the age of 18" to "under the age of majority in the said nation" (or the equivalent) then I would not have an issue.


2. The government shall not forbid or restrict the sale or distribution of any book or other textual or printed material lawfully published in accordance with clause 1 above, save that the government may forbid the sale of sexually explicit and/or violent material to minors below an appropriate age;


This is even more confusing, as it doesn't actually say who defines appropriate. Is it the government or the proposal or the UN?


3. If a book or other material be published unlawfully, the government shall not make a public spectacle of the destruction or recovery of copies of the material, punish the author(s) or publisher(s) with a disproportionate sentence, nor confiscate or destroy equipment or material beyond what is necessary to prevent further distribution of the unlawful material;


What defines "a public show"? Cause a police raid on a warehouse could be defined as such, but that might be the only course of action.


5. The government shall enact legislation such that no individual or organisation may impede or disrupt the publication or distribution of any book or other textual or printed material that may lawfully be published in accordance with clause 1 above, except that the right to impede publication or distribution may be granted by a court as the result of a civil action.


Would that not impeed on the right to demonstrate? For example if a book came out in TilEnca claiming that The Liberation was a myth, and that "The Dark Review" didn't happen, I can see people wanting to protest it's publication and sale - something that would be banned by this clause.



A minor under the age of 18 means a person who is both a minor and less than 18 years old. In a country where the age of legal majority is more than 18 years, this refers only to persons under 18; in a country where the age of legal majority is less than 18, this refers only to minors. Age restrictions for the sale and purchase of sexually explicit and violent material are to be similarly interpreted, with no such restrictions applying to persons who have attained their legal majority.


I know you have put this in the interpretation section, but honestly I think it would be better in the actual clauses as noted above :}

And aslo - if you do not become an adult until the age of 20 (for example) then surely you should still be classed as a minor at 18 for the purposes of the law. This proposal would effectively destroy the age of majority in any nation where it is greater than 18.


"Advocating" a violent act means actually expressing the view that such an act is a good thing. For example, a book that merely described how to manufacture weapons, but did not suggest that they be used to commit violent acts, could not be banned under the terms of this resolution.


But what if there is a book that tells a story of a guy who gets involved in crime, and it all turns out well in the end - he gets rich and doesn't end up in jail or dead because of his involvement. Could that not be said to be advocating a life of crime, even indirectly?


As I said - I support the idea of this, but these "few" points are things I think could cause problems down the way.

There are a few problems I have with this proposal.

1) The proposal limits the rights of governments to forbid the printing of materials for any reason other than child porn and hate crimes. States need the right to forbid the publishing of copyrighted material, material that infringes upon trade secrets, material that endangers national security, material that is libelous, material that infringes upon privacy rights, and probably a few others I haven't thought of yet. They also need the right to forbid material that places the lives of people in danger based on things other than 'race, nationality, sex, sexuality, religion or linguistic background.' That's the problem with encoding a list of exceptions- you always seem to forget something important.

2) The proposal allows governments the right to ban material that advocates sex with minors-- what if that is legal in my country? But you do say 'at its discretion,' so I don't have to ban that if I don't want to.

I have several times attempted to trawl through all the past passed resolutions, but not got as far as that.


I can understand that.

I have another suggestion:

If you are interested in just Human Rights proposals:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/HumanRights.pdf

When I find a web site, I'll have text and links to UN debates (post-Jolt) for all the categories.

But the problem I feel with the current lists is that they aren't formatted in a way that is easy to read or filter. I'm trying to clean up the United Nations Asscoation's Archives (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371985) to address these issues.



Usually when a player is planning on creating a resolution, they have a general idea and feel for what "category" their idea might be best suited for. But reviewing proposals in just that (and perhaps a few other categories) you can cut down on having to read the prior 80 resolution.

Better yet, the archives I'm "pushing" here, also include failed resolution and sometimes info about the debates. Knowing why a resolution failed or what was brought up against a resolution can allow you, the author, to head off those complaints.

When I wrote the "Tracking Near Earth Objects" proposals, I watched several debates on space related issues and international security issues. I was very careful to make it clear why my resolution was different by addressing those prior concerns. I did the same with Ballast Water, when I watched J's first proposal (just a draft) torn to shreds by anti-environmental UN members. With a bit of armor plating just about any idea can survive the UN forum and will likely be better for it too.

Our thanks to all who have contributed, especially the delegates from TilEnca, Adam Island and Mikitivity, for their advice. A second draft may be expected soon. TilEnca and Adam Island had specific concerns which we have tried to address below:



The age of consent and majority in TilEnca is 14, so this clause would have a dramatic impact on some of our literature. However if you change "under the age of 18" to "under the age of majority in the said nation" (or the equivalent) then I would not have an issue.

This idea, that you use the age of majority and cap it at 18, has been used in proposals before, and is enshrined in at least one passed resolution. But if you find this confusing, I'll try and incorporate the definition from the explanatory note in this clause of the resolution.



And aslo - if you do not become an adult until the age of 20 (for example) then surely you should still be classed as a minor at 18 for the purposes of the law. This proposal would effectively destroy the age of majority in any nation where it is greater than 18.

Not destroy - just restrict its applicability. In Britain, to take a real world example, the age of majority is 18, but you can buy and use tobacco products at 16. Think of it as applying in the same way.

I like to set a cap in such clauses, so a nation cannot get around the law by setting the age of majority to 70.



This is even more confusing, as it doesn't actually say who defines appropriate. Is it the government or the proposal or the UN?

For some reason, the quotes within quotes haven't come through. TilEnca was referring to laws about selling sexually explicit and violent material. I was assuming that if an age wasn't actually stated here, it would be set by individual governments. I'll make this clearer.



What defines "a public show"? Cause a police raid on a warehouse could be defined as such, but that might be the only course of action.

Something that you do with a view to displaying your activities to the public. Police raid on warehouse isn't (unless you invite people to come along and watch). Making a bonfire in the town square and throwing books on it is.



Would that not impeed on the right to demonstrate? For example if a book came out in TilEnca claiming that The Liberation was a myth, and that "The Dark Review" didn't happen, I can see people wanting to protest it's publication and sale - something that would be banned by this clause.

Yes, that is precidely the intention of clause 5. The main purpose is to stop fundamentalist sects banning each other's writings as heretical, but we wanted to extend it to this sort of protest.

Note that people can protest the publication and sale of a book. What they can't do is force booksellers to stop stocking it, or grab the cartons of books as they arrive and trample them in the street.



But what if there is a book that tells a story of a guy who gets involved in crime, and it all turns out well in the end - he gets rich and doesn't end up in jail or dead because of his involvement. Could that not be said to be advocating a life of crime, even indirectly?

I hadn't thought of that particular example. I don't think so, but I suppose it could be argued that way. I'll say "explicitly advocating" or words to that effect.

I think that governments will find ways to get around the ban. In the real world, lawyers would spend weeks plugging these little holes, and the final document would be tens of pages long. I'm not a lawyer, I don't have weeks, and there's a limit of 5500 characters....



The proposal limits the rights of governments to forbid the printing of materials for any reason other than child porn and hate crimes. States need the right to forbid the publishing of copyrighted material, material that infringes upon trade secrets, material that endangers national security, material that is libelous, material that infringes upon privacy rights, and probably a few others I haven't thought of yet. They also need the right to forbid material that places the lives of people in danger based on things other than 'race, nationality, sex, sexuality, religion or linguistic background.' That's the problem with encoding a list of exceptions- you always seem to forget something important.

A previous draft had an exception for terrorism, which I wanted to retain, but the other nations in the BookCrossing region wanted that to be removed. The general feeling in the region seemed to be that the material doesn't place lives in danger. It may encourage people to do so, but it isn't itself dangerous; and the government has far more to worry about than banning books if this is the only way it can see to reducing violence

Libel, privacy, trade secrets and copyright I see all as civil law, not criminal law. Clause 5 allows courts to grant the plaintiff an injunction to stop publication in these cases, or any other cases where there is a suitable civil statute in place. I shall put this into the explanatory notes.

It may be worth mentioning here that under this law, governments cannot directly stop people revealing state secrets. The only solution is to legislate to protect trade or individual secrets, and the government to bring a civil action, which might then be granted an injunction under clause 5.

There are a few problems I have with this proposal.

1) The proposal limits the rights of governments to forbid the printing of materials for any reason other than child porn and hate crimes. States need the right to forbid the publishing of copyrighted material, material that infringes upon trade secrets, material that endangers national security, material that is libelous, material that infringes upon privacy rights, and probably a few others I haven't thought of yet. They also need the right to forbid material that places the lives of people in danger based on things other than 'race, nationality, sex, sexuality, religion or linguistic background.' That's the problem with encoding a list of exceptions- you always seem to forget something important.


The copyrighted stuff would be taken care of by the UCPL (or whatever it's called).

This idea, that you use the age of majority and cap it at 18, has been used in proposals before, and is enshrined in at least one passed resolution. But if you find this confusing, I'll try and incorporate the definition from the explanatory note in this clause of the resolution.

...

Not destroy - just restrict its applicability. In Britain, to take a real world example, the age of majority is 18, but you can buy and use tobacco products at 16. Think of it as applying in the same way.

...

I like to set a cap in such clauses, so a nation cannot get around the law by setting the age of majority to 70.


I am afraid I would still be unhappy with that. I know you could get around it by setting the age of majority to 70, but that would have a lot of other bad side effects in a nation. So I would (personally) still prefer to see it as "the age of majority" rather than a specific age.



For some reason, the quotes within quotes haven't come through. TilEnca was referring to laws about selling sexually explicit and violent material. I was assuming that if an age wasn't actually stated here, it would be set by individual governments. I'll make this clearer.


So if the governments can set the age in this case, why not in the other one?


Something that you do with a view to displaying your activities to the public. Police raid on warehouse isn't (unless you invite people to come along and watch). Making a bonfire in the town square and throwing books on it is.


I was just concerned that if you saw two dozen police cars all racing along the road to a local warehouse, you might be tempted to come along and watch. And it might make it on the news as well. But if that is not classed as public then I have no problem with it :}


Yes, that is precidely the intention of clause 5. The main purpose is to stop fundamentalist sects banning each other's writings as heretical, but we wanted to extend it to this sort of protest.

...

Note that people can protest the publication and sale of a book. What they can't do is force booksellers to stop stocking it, or grab the cartons of books as they arrive and trample them in the street.


How would you define "force" in this case? I get they can't grab the cartons of the street and burn them, but what if they were to organize a boycott of the store, so the bookseller had no choice but to stop selling it? Or if they were to picket the front of the store to stop people going in?
I would consider that a right of freedom to protest, as long as they didn't start beating people up who entered and so on, but would that be forbidden under this?

I am all for letting people have freedom of speach, and a free press and publishing industry. But it has to work both ways. If the people (rather than the government) doesn't like the content of a book, they have to be allowed to protest it and to do what they peacefully can to stop people buying it. Otherwise what is the point of passing a resolution for freedom of expression (which is what this is, in my view).

I am afraid I would still be unhappy with that. I know you could get around it by setting the age of majority to 70, but that would have a lot of other bad side effects in a nation. So I would (personally) still prefer to see it as "the age of majority" rather than a specific age.

You are in effect asking for greater licence for the government to censor stuff. You want governments to be able to censor porn involving any minors, not just those under eighteen.

The general feeling on the poll (not that we've got enough replies for a real idea yet) is that people would prefer a complete ban on censorship. So I don't really want to move in the other direction!


So if the governments can set the age in this case, why not in the other one?

Here, I am proposing giving the government the option to allow some minors to buy porn; i.e., I am letting governments reduce the amount of censorship if they desire. In the previous case, I was putting a cap on the amount of censorship they apply - the two have opposite functions. I could have set this one to 18 as well, making everything either 18-rated or U-rated. But I think governments should be allowed to impose 15-rating or 12-rating if they wish.


I was just concerned that if you saw two dozen police cars all racing along the road to a local warehouse, you might be tempted to come along and watch. And it might make it on the news as well. But if that is not classed as public then I have no problem with it :}

This is a valid point, and I am working on some words to make this clear in the text of the resolution.

The point being, it is not what I intended it to mean, but what UN lawyers will eventually take it to mean, that counts.

On the other hand, I don't think we should be fussing about such subtleties of wording in the light of some of the things that we read on the Proposals list, and even in passed resolutions!


How would you define "force" in this case? I get they can't grab the cartons of the street and burn them, but what if they were to organize a boycott of the store, so the bookseller had no choice but to stop selling it? Or if they were to picket the front of the store to stop people going in?
I would consider that a right of freedom to protest, as long as they didn't start beating people up who entered and so on, but would that be forbidden under this?

This is getting even more subtle. I (personally) would take it that standing outside the shop waving placards and shouting is OK, but phyiscally preventing people from entering the shop isn't. But I think this is such a fine point that I don't intend to change the wording at this stage.


Otherwise what is the point of passing a resolution for freedom of expression (which is what this is, in my view).

And it is so stated in the fourth (soon to be fifth) clause of the preamble.

I shall consider "Freedom of Expression" as a title, although at the moment this is aimed mainly at expression on paper.

Thinking more about the clause which requires legislation to stop private citizens and organisations from banning books:

While I originally wrote it to stop such people taking the law into their own hands, in most nations there will already be laws forbidding such things as violence, theft and damage to people's property. So much of this clause is redundant, or appears to put special protection on books, which I think may be a major part of TilEnca's concern.

So I shall try and re-write it to make it clear that it is not trying to give books special protection against otherwise legal protest, but to make sure that books have the same protection as other things.

You are in effect asking for greater licence for the government to censor stuff. You want governments to be able to censor porn involving any minors, not just those under eighteen.


Which, honestly, is a right and proper thing.

For example - if my nation's age of majority was 21 (which is not unheard of, not unnacceptably high), then we would alreadh have banned porn involving anyone under the age of 21.

And now - with this resolution - you are letting people get away with crimes against children and forcing our nation to accept those crimes as legal meaning we can do nothing about it.

(I realise that we have an age of consent of 14, so this is not going to affect us, but there might be nations out there who would suffer the effects above, and your proposed resolution would lead to legalized child abuse in those countries. Which is, I suspect, not what you were hoping for!)

And - just to throw another curse in the spell - there is a resolution "Outlaw Pedophillia" - where it defines any one having sex, or sexual relations, with a pre-pubescent child as a crime. So if a child does not reach puberty until 50 years old (which again is not impossible) then this proposal would be inviolatio of that proposal, in that showing people having sex with 18 year olds could EASILY be considered an incitement to commit a crime.


Here, I am proposing giving the government the option to allow some minors to buy porn; i.e., I am letting governments reduce the amount of censorship if they desire. In the previous case, I was putting a cap on the amount of censorship they apply - the two have opposite functions. I could have set this one to 18 as well, making everything either 18-rated or U-rated. But I think governments should be allowed to impose 15-rating or 12-rating if they wish.


That makes more sense. I misunderstood originally :}


This is getting even more subtle. I (personally) would take it that standing outside the shop waving placards and shouting is OK, but phyiscally preventing people from entering the shop isn't. But I think this is such a fine point that I don't intend to change the wording at this stage.


As would I. Except to some degree I don't agree, because if you form a line infront of the shop, but do not physically touch anyone, I would still consider that peaceful protest, even though the police would probably be asked to move them on.


I shall consider "Freedom of Expression" as a title, although at the moment this is aimed mainly at expression on paper.

The title is fine. I was just explaining why the right to freely protest about the content of a book can't be overridden in a resolution (or shouldn't be overridden at least!)

For example - if my nation's age of majority was 21 (which is not unheard of, not unnacceptably high), then we would alreadh have banned porn involving anyone under the age of 21.

And now - with this resolution - you are letting people get away with crimes against children and forcing our nation to accept those crimes as legal meaning we can do nothing about it.

(I realise that we have an age of consent of 14, so this is not going to affect us, but there might be nations out there who would suffer the effects above, and your proposed resolution would lead to legalized child abuse in those countries. Which is, I suspect, not what you were hoping for!)

Hang on. There are two things wrong with your reasoning here.

One is that the age of sexual consent is not the same as the age of legal majority. In Britain (you can tell Bujoldyar is a British colony, can't you :) ), for example, the age of consent has been 16 for well over 100 years. The age of legal majority came down about 30 years ago from 21 to 18.

The other is your assertion that this law would "lead to legalized child abuse". Why? This law has nothing whatsoever to say about the legality of child abuse. It merely permits governments to censor books about it in certain circumstances. And while you would like the government to censor such books in slightly wider circumstances, the poll is gradually picking up support the other way - for no censorship at all.


And - just to throw another curse in the spell - there is a resolution "Outlaw Pedophillia" - where it defines any one having sex, or sexual relations, with a pre-pubescent child as a crime. So if a child does not reach puberty until 50 years old (which again is not impossible) then this proposal would be inviolatio of that proposal, in that showing people having sex with 18 year olds could EASILY be considered an incitement to commit a crime.

Now I'm totally confused. How on earth will my proposal invalidate that resolution? Sex with pre-pubescent minors will remain a crime. My proposal doesn't affect that at all!

My proposal never claimed to allow censorship of incitement to crimes in general. I would strongly resist such a clause, in fact, since an oppressive government could then censor any subversive literature, simply by making disagreeing with the government a crime - something my proposal is expressly designed to prevent.


The title is fine. I was just explaining why the right to freely protest about the content of a book can't be overridden in a resolution (or shouldn't be overridden at least!)

The title "Freedom of the Press" isn't fine - there is an existing resolution with that exact title. It covers the activities of journalists, and doesn't touch on this subject at all, though.

I agree about the right to protest freely, by the way. See my earlier post in which I explained the thinking behind clause 5.

And - just to throw another curse in the spell - there is a resolution "Outlaw Pedophillia" - where it defines any one having sex, or sexual relations, with a pre-pubescent child as a crime. So if a child does not reach puberty until 50 years old (which again is not impossible) then this proposal would be inviolatio of that proposal, in that showing people having sex with 18 year olds could EASILY be considered an incitement to commit a crime.

Now I'm totally confused. How on earth will my proposal invalidate that resolution? Sex with pre-pubescent minors will remain a crime. My proposal doesn't affect that at all!

Sorry, I mis-read your post. But I still disagree. My proposed law does not violate the early proposal, since it has nothing to say about whether one should have sex with pre-pubescent minors. My proposed law concerns only what the government may and may not censor, not the legality of the activities described in the censored (or otherwise) material.

Yeah - sorry. I really did get confused between the idea of consent and majority. So most of what I wrote was nonsense.

"1. The government shall not forbid or restrict the publication of any book or other textual or printed material, with the exception that the government may at its discretion restrict material that advocates or derives from the sexual exploitation of minors under the age of 18 years, and/or advocates committing violent acts against other human beings on the grounds of their race, nationality, sex, sexuality, religion or linguistic background;"


If the age of consent (not majority) in TilEnca was 21, then we would find the sexual explotation of anyone under that offensive. But your proposal would force us to permit this abomination in to our country, when at the moment we forbid it until the minor reaches 21.

I know - it's a small point. And the age of consent in TilEnca is 14 so this would not be an issue here (unless someone took this proposal to mean that minors are people under the age of 18, but it is possible to read it so that isn't the case). But if a nation has forbidden sex under a certain age, I am not convinced that you should be permitted to force them to let books be published that advocate or derive from people having sex under that age.

I can't accept that you can't substitute "minors under the age of consent" for "minors under the age of 18" without totally destroying your proposal.

The title "Freedom of the Press" isn't fine - there is an existing resolution with that exact title. It covers the activities of journalists, and doesn't touch on this subject at all, though.


Sorry - I just meant it was fine by me - I wasn't advocating change :}

If the age of consent (not majority) in TilEnca was 21, then we would find the sexual explotation of anyone under that offensive. But your proposal would force us to permit this abomination in to our country, when at the moment we forbid it until the minor reaches 21.

No it wouldn't. :headbang: It would do one thing and one thing only - forbid you to censor books about it. There are plenty of ways to tackle the problem without censoring books. And we in Bujoldyar believe that censoring books isn't a good way to tackle the problem, since it tends to make people think the problem isn't there.

The sexual exploitation of minors is, I agree, an abomination. A properly formulated law could cover child porn, child prostitution and anything else pertinent without censoring any books. What about that all-too-common legislative dodge, a law based on intent? A law that forbids (for example) photographing naked children with the intent to sell pornography would (a) not fall foul of the anti-censorship legislation and (b) tackle the problem closer to its source than banning (in this example) the books of photos.


I can't accept that you can't substitute "minors under the age of consent" for "minors under the age of 18" without totally destroying your proposal.
Oh, that would be quite easy. In fact I was tempted to word it like that. But I can see that a country might allow kids to have sex at age 12, but still want to stop porn involving kids up to age 16. And your suggested wording would forbid this :) You seem to want the cap to be the greater of the ages of majority and consent! And the general feeling is still going against you with more than half the votes polled expressing a preference for a total ban on censorship.

No it wouldn't. :headbang: It would do one thing and one thing only - forbid you to censor books about it. There are plenty of ways to tackle the problem without censoring books. And we in Bujoldyar believe that censoring books isn't a good way to tackle the problem, since it tends to make people think the problem isn't there.


That's my point. If you are happy to censor books on that topic with people under 18, because that is the age of consent in your nation, why can you not understand my governments desire to censor books on that topic involving people under my age of consent?

Or - to put it another way - if you can stop books about having sex with 17 year olds in a country where the age of consent is 18, why not stop them about people having sex with 20 year olds when they age of consent is 21?


Oh, that would be quite easy. In fact I was tempted to word it like that. But I can see that a country might allow kids to have sex at age 12, but still want to stop porn involving kids up to age 16. And your suggested wording would forbid this :) You seem to want the cap to be the greater of the ages of majority and consent! And the general feeling is still going against you with more than half the votes polled expressing a preference for a total ban on censorship.

I want the cap to be the age that the nation to whom you are applying this proposal has decided. After all - it is not beyond reason to believe that they know more about their nation than you do. Instead you are applying arbitrary moral definitions on countries that might not want them, all in the name of "doing what is right".


This is my question :- are you trying to stop books that sexually exploit children (those below the age of majority) or stop books that sexually exploit those who are not permitted to have sex (those below the age of consent)?

What ever you answer is, then why not say that, rather than picking an age out of thin air that has very little relation to the world of NationStates?

Sorry for I at some point lost the patience to follow all the finer points of discussion about ages of consent and the like. I guess you will get that worked out with time. Here are just some further points of notice:

1) not all nations' populace consists of "human" beings. I suggest to replace that phrase with "sentient beings" (for example, in my native region there is a nation of feline beings).

2) in clause 1, violence against sentient beings should be excluded on a general principle, not just based on any kind of reasons. What I mean is, drop the "based on..." part of that sentence.

3) Finally, I could not resist to add this comment about the age restrictions: please have a look at the various resolutions protecting children, and where necessary, refer to them without explicitely setting any age in this resolution.

1) not all nations' populace consists of "human" beings. I suggest to replace that phrase with "sentient beings" (for example, in my native region there is a nation of feline beings).


If I may be so bold as to suggest that you take the concept of "human beings" to mean "those protected as citizens with my nation".
TilEnca has three main races - Elf, Dwarf and Human. And we have taken "human beings" to apply to all three races. It is less complicated than demanding rights for every race, species and being in every nation, given there are 900,000 of them and you can imagine the verbal contortions you can get to :}


3) Finally, I could not resist to add this comment about the age restrictions: please have a look at the various resolutions protecting children, and where necessary, refer to them without explicitely setting any age in this resolution.

(grin) My type of resolutions :}

If I may be so bold as to suggest that you take the concept of "human beings" to mean "those protected as citizens with my nation".
TilEnca has three main races - Elf, Dwarf and Human. And we have taken "human beings" to apply to all three races. It is less complicated than demanding rights for every race, species and being in every nation, given there are 900,000 of them and you can imagine the verbal contortions you can get to

First: unfortunately, UN resolutions are implemented as law by their WORD and not by their INTENTIONS.

Second: My feline fellows might feel severely offended by being included in the term "Human being"

Third: "Sentient being" is nomore complicated a term than "human being", and at the same time covers all beings with near- or above-human intelligence, that being the definition of "sentient".

First: unfortunately, UN resolutions are implemented as law by their WORD and not by their INTENTIONS.

Second: My feline fellows might feel severely offended by being included in the term "Human being"

Third: "Sentient being" is nomore complicated a term than "human being", and at the same time covers all beings with near- or above-human intelligence, that being the definition of "sentient".

You would think "sentient being" is not more complicated, but here's the thing...

What defines sentience?
What if a nation has a species that meets all but one of those qualities for sentience, but still considers it a protected race. (For example if I were to want to class vampires as citizens, they are not classed as sentient, but would have the rights of the elves, dwarves and humans in my nation). Should I now pettetion the UN to have all resolutions to redefine "sentient beings" are because vampires would not be protected under the current resolutions?

Secondly - there is a classification called "Human Rights" that some proposals and resolutions fall under. Would you require those to be re-defined as "sentient and vampire" rights? Cause I am pretty sure that they would have to be repealed and then re-enacted before that could be done.

I know - the term "human" can be considered offensive - it does not refer to elves, dwarves, vampires, felines, aliens, monsters, giant bits of sea-weed and rabbits, but considering the problems I just outlined could you, and your people, find it in your hearts (assuming you have hearts and not anything else that would be comparable to the human heart but is called something else) to overlook the possible offence and accept that the UN is defending the rights of all people in all nations, even if it sometimes limits the language it uses to do so?

Also : http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentient

You would think "sentient being" is not more complicated, but here's the thing...

What defines sentience?
What if a nation has a species that meets all but one of those qualities for sentience, but still considers it a protected race. (For example if I were to want to class vampires as citizens, they are not classed as sentient, but would have the rights of the elves, dwarves and humans in my nation). Should I now pettetion the UN to have all resolutions to redefine "sentient beings" are because vampires would not be protected under the current resolutions?

Secondly - there is a classification called "Human Rights" that some proposals and resolutions fall under. Would you require those to be re-defined as "sentient and vampire" rights? Cause I am pretty sure that they would have to be repealed and then re-enacted before that could be done.

I know - the term "human" can be considered offensive - it does not refer to elves, dwarves, vampires, felines, aliens, monsters, giant bits of sea-weed and rabbits, but considering the problems I just outlined could you, and your people, find it in your hearts (assuming you have hearts and not anything else that would be comparable to the human heart but is called something else) to overlook the possible offence and accept that the UN is defending the rights of all people in all nations, even if it sometimes limits the language it uses to do so?

Also : http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentient


First: why would you deem vampires as non-sentient??

Second: if "Sentient" is to complicated a term, than let's call it "citizens". That clear enough?

Third: Yes, I would, if I could, rename all those "Human Right" resolutions into - let's say - "Citizens' right" or something like this, because, yes, to the citizens of my neighbour the term "human" would be iondeed extremely offensive.

And yes, I do have a heart, and yes, I do fight for the proper acknowledgment of sentient beeings other than humans, even when the majority of my own population consists of humans, myself included.

And please ask your elvish or dwarvish citizen if they are not somewhat offended to be called "human". You might be surprised at their answers.

First: why would you deem vampires as non-sentient??


They are dead. Being alive is one of the classifications of sentience.


Second: if "Sentient" is to complicated a term, than let's call it "citizens". That clear enough?


(grin) That I would accept :}


Third: Yes, I would, if I could, rename all those "Human Right" resolutions into - let's say - "Citizens' right" or something like this, because, yes, to the citizens of my neighbour the term "human" would be iondeed extremely offensive.


There is not a lot I can do about that.


And yes, I do have a heart, and yes, I do fight for the proper acknowledgment of sentient beeings other than humans, even when the majority of my own population consists of humans, myself included.


First - sorry if I misunderstood. I did not mean to imply you were unfeeling or evil. I just meant that biology differs from race to race and would not want to ignore your specific biology.


And please ask your elvish or dwarvish citizen if they are not somewhat offended to be called "human". You might be surprised at their answers.

They don't mind. I asked them. They accept that they are equal with humans, and do not object to the term "human rights" being applied to them if it stops them being abused and mistreated. They accept it is a legal term, and not one that changes their species. They also accept that to have every piece of legislation in TilEnca rewritten - not to improve the laws held within, but to adhere to what could be classed as political correctness run amuk - is not the best use of The Council's time.

OK, now I feel we have reached an agreement with TilEnca about terms: Advice to replace "human being" with "citizen". BTW, TilEnca, I have to admire the tolerance of your elvish and dwarvish population :surprised: