NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel fairly strongly about this. Democracy shouldn't just be a slanging match between two politicians - it should be about policies. Having played the game for... over a year and a half now, I figured I'd attempt to put something back in. Can anyone check this through for me, and give me tips on how to improve it, and how to get it voted in?

End to Negative Campaigning

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

Description: RECOGNISING that negative campaigning, whereby politicians and political parties attempt to defame their opposition by attacks on their character, is an escalating problem in many representative democracies,

CONCERNED that voter apathy is increased by the lack of clear policies and stances on issues, as campaign time is diverted to attacks on the opposition, and noting that radical voters and candidates are more likely to vote and win power than mainstream voters/candidates,

RECALLING UN resolution #8, Citizen Rule Required, and the necessity for the populace of all nations to be involved with the selection of their government, and resolution #53, Universal Freedom of Choice, which seeks to allow all citizens of UN nations the right to informed choice of politicians, and without seeking to interfere with resolution #63, Freedom of Press,

STATES THAT no politician within a UN member nation is to seek to damage his opponents' chances of success in an election by attacks on their character, race, gender, sexuality or any other factor except their political platform, as long as the defect in question cannot be demonstrably proven to affect the candidate's political judgement or ability to serve their term. Candidates are instead encouraged to emphasise their own policies and strengths and the weaknesses in their opponents policies in attempt to become elected to office.

SUGGESTING that this will raise voter turnout in elections, thus furthering the cause of democracy, and

CONDEMNS any future proposals seeking to use this resolution as a basis for further restrictions on freedom of speech as a perversion of the intent of the resolution, but cannot forbid it, in keeping with UN rules.




How's that? All typo free, all written in the right style, all practical, all within the UN's remit?

Anything I should change?

And if this is good, and I submit it, what do I do then? A massed telegram campaign to regional delegates?

Category: Furtherment of Democracy, I'd imagine

You're right. I'll edit that in...

It's a good resolution, although I feel that it should be made clear that it is okay for a politician to point out the flaws in an oppositions plan.

The problem is that it might lead to really incompitant people being elected to executive positions, on the basis of a sound party manifesto

It's a good resolution, although I feel that it should be made clear that it is okay for a politician to point out the flaws in an oppositions plan.

The problem is that it might lead to really incompitant people being elected to executive positions, on the basis of a sound party manifesto

Okay, how about adding "and the weaknesses in their opponents policies" after "emphasise their own policies and strengths"?

Of course, with the existing system, I think it's even more likely for incompetent people to get voted in. The existing way, they just have to be good at sounding off about their opponent's personal life. If this is passed, they're actually going to have to point out the strengths of their policy... :D

I suppose so..
Okay, you have my support. Unfortunately I'm no longer a delegate so I wont be able to approve it!

While it's a nice idea, and a well-written proposal, I really don't think it's any of the UN's business how my national political races operate.

While it's a nice idea, and a well-written proposal, I really don't think it's any of the UN's business how my national political races operate.

But it is. Citizen Rule Required and Universal Freedom of Choice are just two of the many, many resolutions that govern who and how your citizens can elect their governments. It's exactly the UN's business. And really, who loses out by this?

Anyone other than snarky politicians?

[EDIT: Uh, that's not intended to imply that all politicians are snarky. Just that the snarky ones will suffer for it. :D]

While it's a nice idea, and a well-written proposal, I really don't think it's any of the UN's business how my national political races operate.

I am inclined to agree, how my parties wish to conduct themselves is fine as far as im concerned... within some limits ;)

We like our freedom of speech, so no support by us for this. Also your resolution does nothing. "It stresses" and "encourages", but does not seem to outlaw or actually make anyone do anything.

A look at the draft for the new UN rules might also be in order, especially the part on "house of cards": http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873996&postcount=95

A look at the draft for the new UN rules might also be in order, especially the part on "house of cards": http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873996&postcount=95
I actually think the referencing in this case is acceptable; there's only three referenced resolutions, and they all seem to apply in some way.

Although in response to Micropolis, I believe that your referenced resolutions overly nullify national sovereignty as well. I apologize, but I won't be supporting this.

We like our freedom of speech, so no support by us for this. Also your resolution does nothing. "It stresses" and "encourages", but does not seem to outlaw or actually make anyone do anything.

A look at the draft for the new UN rules might also be in order, especially the part on "house of cards": http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873996&postcount=95

Okay, I've edited it to read STATES THAT rather than STRESSES THAT. I figured stresses was strong enough to make it mandatory, but there's no room for confusion there now.

This proposal could stand alone without the other resolutions (though I appreciate being directed to the house of cards bit - I'd missed that).

Is there any way that I could win the support of those objecting to this proposal? Yes, it does mildly infringe on some peoples freedom of speech on certain occasions. Surely the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

I can't believe that you're opposed to it because you're pro politicians insulting each other?

[EDIT: The "encourages" bit is intentional. I don't want to force you to highlight how brilliant your policies are. I just want to disallow you from mudslinging.]

The Kingdom of Wegason believes that the right to free speech is more beneficial than curbing it, especially in the case of negative campaigning

The Kingdom of Wegason believes that the right to free speech is more beneficial than curbing it, especially in the case of negative campaigning

Especially?

Why especially?

I mean, geez, I agree with you on free speech. I think it's a glorious, wonderful thing. I just want it to be curtailed temporarily in part (a minor part) for people who voluntarily stand for office...

I say especially as i do not think it is an issue that warrants curbing free speech.
Wegason for example, curbs free speech when someone is

Proclaiming that the people of a certain gender, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, religion or race should be killed.


I do think your proposal is well written though, always nice to see that.

Is there any way that I could win the support of those objecting to this proposal? Yes, it does mildly infringe on some peoples freedom of speech on certain occasions. Surely the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

I can't believe that you're opposed to it because you're pro politicians insulting each other?

We have laws that deal with defamation and slander. It is up to the individual politicians/citizens to use those laws to protect themselves if they wish through civil suits - it is not up to the state to protect them from it. Especially not politicians, who are public characters and as such are going to have to endure a lot more than a regular citizen. That's the price one pays when one foresakes anonymity.

Freedom of speech is more important than someone's wish that other people be "nice" to each other.

Also, your resolution bans politicians from damaging their "opponents' chances of success in an election by attacks on their character, race, gender, sexuality or any other factor", which is just ludicrous as it makes it impossible for anyone to attack their opponent's political platform and thus guts the entire political process.

Your resolution is just a bad idea for the UN do deal with.

I say especially as i do not think it is an issue that warrants curbing free speech.
Wegason for example, curbs free speech when someone is

Proclaiming that the people of a certain gender, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, religion or race should be killed.


I do think your proposal is well written though, always nice to see that.

You realise what you're saying (no... perhaps just strongly implying) that proclaiming that the people of a certain gender, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, religion or race shouldn't be voted into office is a valuable freedom of speech?

[EDIT: Thanks for the second bit, though. ^_^]

You realise what you're saying (no... perhaps just strongly implying) that proclaiming that the people of a certain gender, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, religion or race shouldn't be voted into office is a valuable freedom of speech?

Who are you to state what is "valuable" or not? Freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. Not "freedom of popular speech", or "freedom of appropriate speech", or "freedom of true speech", or "freedom of nice speech" &c.

You realise what you're saying (no... perhaps just strongly implying) that proclaiming that the people of a certain gender, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, religion or race shouldn't be voted into office is a valuable freedom of speech?

They can say that as it doesnt call upon people to kill others.

I like to think my citizens are smart enough to not vote for someone who proclaims something like what you are suggesting.

We have laws that deal with defamation and slander. It is up to the individual politicians/citizens to use those laws to protect themselves if they wish through civil suits - it is not up to the state to protect them from it. Especially not politicians, who are public characters and as such are going to have to endure a lot more than a regular citizen. That's the price one pays when one foresakes anonymity.

The resolution as written doesn't deny the rest of society the chance to have a pop at them. Joe Bloggs and the street can say whatever they like about them. That's not the job of the politicians, though.

Freedom of speech is more important than someone's wish that other people be "nice" to each other.

Okay, so I would like people to be nice to each other. :p

But when political campaigns start revolving primarily around petty attacks at other candidates, it's distracting from the actual issues.

Also, your resolution bans politicians from damaging their "opponents' chances of success in an election by attacks on their character, race, gender, sexuality or any other factor", which is just ludicrous as it makes it impossible for anyone to attack their opponent's political platform and thus guts the entire political process.

...but later suggests that they "emphasise their own policies and strengths and the weaknesses in their opponents policies". I'm not saying that you can't say "Mr. Jones' policies on healthcare are untenable," I'm saying you can't say "Mr Jones' marriage is breaking down. How can he manage a country when he can't manage his own wife!"

That's not politics, that's just vile, and it's besides the point.

Should I amend the "any other factor" to "any other factor except their political platform"?

I'm not saying that you can't say "Mr. Jones' policies on healthcare are untenable," I'm saying you can't say "Mr Jones' marriage is breaking down. How can he manage a country when he can't manage his own wife!"

That's not politics, that's just vile, and it's besides the point.

Should I amend the "any other factor" to "any other factor except their political platform"?

That is a good point raised, however i believe nations should be free to implement laws such as these if they want to. Although adding what you have just suggested is a good one.

Who are you to state what is "valuable" or not? Freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. Not "freedom of popular speech", or "freedom of appropriate speech", or "freedom of true speech", or "freedom of nice speech" &c.

Well, that's exactly what the UN does, isn't it?

They can say that as it doesnt call upon people to kill others.

I like to think my citizens are smart enough to not vote for someone who proclaims something like what you are suggesting.

People do. I hate to godwin, but real world-wise, Hitler was voted in. Obviously, I'm not keen to persue that train of debate, because godwinning rapidly spirals downhill, but it can and does happen.

That is a good point raised, however i believe nations should be free to implement laws such as these if they want to. Although adding what you have just suggested is a good one.

Nations are free to implement these laws as the situation stands. Micropolis certainly has. I will make the amendment, though. :)

The resolution as written doesn't deny the rest of society the chance to have a pop at them. Joe Bloggs and the street can say whatever they like about them. That's not the job of the politicians, though.

Which makes your resolution arbitrary and discriminatory, which makes it even worse.

But when political campaigns start revolving primarily around petty attacks at other candidates, it's distracting from the actual issues.

We have faith in our populace and that they can see through that. We are not here to treat them as mentally retarded or in any other way incapable of forming their own opinions.

...but later suggests that they "emphasise their own policies and strengths and the weaknesses in their opponents policies". I'm not saying that you can't say "Mr. Jones' policies on healthcare are untenable," I'm saying you can't say "Mr Jones' marriage is breaking down. How can he manage a country when he can't manage his own wife!"

That's not politics, that's just vile, and it's besides the point.

Again, who are you to say that? That politician may very well be advocating a platform that makes his private conduct hypocritical and the people have a right to now, and other politicians have a right to point that out.

Add whatever you wish, we will not support such an attempt at gutting our freedom of speech and freedom of information.

Looking at the proposal with all its changes now i think that yes i may consider supporting this.

Well, that's exactly what the UN does, isn't it?

So far it has not limited our freedom of speech in any way, and we will oppose any attempt at doing so. If your nation has a problem with negative campaigning, that's your problem and you should deal with it and sacrifice your own freedom of speech in the process. Don't try to drag us down with you.

Which makes your resolution discriminatory and thus even worse.

It's discriminatory to say that people should do their job - promoting their political platform - while denying them the right to not do their job - personally attacking their opposition?

We have faith in our populace and that they can see through that. We are not here to treat them as mentally retarded or in any other way incapable of forming their own opinions.

Then I congratulate the people of Fass. People in the rest of the world may not be so enlightened, however.

Again, who are you to say that? That politician may very well be advocating a platform that makes his private conduct hypocritical and the people have a right to now, and other politicians have a right to point that out.

Add whatever you wish, we will not support such an attempt at gutting our freedom of speech and freedom of information.

And the press is still allowed to reveal these things. Does it really matter that a politician's platform is hipocritical? Surely a good policy is a good policy, regardless of who's suggesting it?

Really, this isn't gutting your freedom of speech or information. It's adding a small qualifier to it. It's not as horrific as you're making out.

I'll be around for the next ten minutes, but after that I won't be able to respond to anything until tomorrow, I'm afraid.

So far it has not limited our freedom of speech in any way, and we will oppose any attempt at doing so. If your nation has a problem with negative campaigning, that's your problem and you should deal with it and sacrifice your own freedom of speech in the process. Don't try to drag us down with you.

Uh, I was actually pointing out that what the UN does is decide what's valuable. Perhaps I should have ommitted the second half of the quote to emphasise that.

Where are you being dragged down to?

Looking at the proposal with all its changes now i think that yes i may consider supporting this.

Glad to hear it. :)

It's discriminatory to say that people should do their job - promoting their political platform - while denying them the right to not do their job - personally attacking their opposition?

Yes it is, because it basically says "freedom of speech for everyone, except for politicians". That is just ridiculous.

Then I congratulate the people of Fass. People in the rest of the world may not be so enlightened, however.

And they should deal with it themselves. Our poplace is not to be punished for the shortcomings of yours. Also, you should look into the resolutions that establish freedom of speech in the UN - you are in violation of the "Universal Bill of Rights Article 2": All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

And the press is still allowed to reveal these things. Does it really matter that a politician's platform is hipocritical? Surely a good policy is a good policy, regardless of who's suggesting it?

Again, who are you to say that? Hypocrisy needs to be exposed and everyone has the right to expose it.

Really, this isn't gutting your freedom of speech or information. It's adding a small qualifier to it. It's not as horrific as you're making out.

Yes it is. Any attempt at eroding our freedom of speech will be met with the strongest of opposition - especially such a discriminatory attempt at forcing "freedom of nice speech".

Uh, I was actually pointing out that what the UN does is decide what's valuable.

No it doesn't. You wish it to, but doesn't. Again, look at the resolutions which establish freedom of speech.

Where are you being dragged down to?

The sacrifying of a fundamental freedom so that your urge to force other people to be "nice" be satisfied. We are not so weak a nation to stand for that.

Whilst we hate when "democracy" descends into petty disputes instead of rational debate on political philosophies, we are not prepared to accept restrictions on freedom of speech. Fass has already said it perfectly.

Plus, occasionally arguments concerning politicians personally can be valid. For instance, if a politician had hidden links to corporations, it would not be wrong for opponents to point out his/her vested interests. Or if they were hiding some personal condition that could affect their ability to fill an important executive post, it would be right for opponents to point it out.

And the press is still allowed to reveal these things.

In some nations, the press might be unwilling to do this. What if the mainstream media was wholly state-controlled, or owned by people allied with one party, or they were simply too afraid of the government to undermine it?

Does it really matter that a politician's platform is hipocritical? Surely a good policy is a good policy, regardless of who's suggesting it?

Not always. A campaign may be based on lies, which should be revealed. Say a homophobic conservative party was promoting the use of some "cure" for homosexuality in a campaign, and was telling the electorate that homosexuality was like a disease that afflicts people and they ought to be forced to undergo treatment for it. Say a prominent member of the party was being touted as an example of the resounding success of the "treatments", but in secret they were frequently visiting gay brothels.

It would be good for this hypocrisy to be revealed, as it undermines the conservatives' arguments about the nature of homosexuality and their proposed "cure".

real world-wise, Hitler was voted in.

OOC: Actually untrue. Hitler was appointed, and the Nazis did not gain power in a free election.

When Hitler finally became chancellor, on January 30, 1933, it was not on the crest of a wave of popular support but as the result of backroom political intrigue by Schleicher, Papen, and the president's son, Oskar von Hindenburg.

....

The elections of March 5, 1933, were preceded by a brutal and violent campaign in which Nazi storm troopers under the command of Ernst Röhm figured prominently. Hitler was also able to take advantage of the Reichstag fire (probably the work of a lone and deranged Dutch communist) of February 27 to suspend civil liberties and arrest communist as well as other opposition leaders. Despite this campaign of terror, the Nazis did not win a majority, gaining only 43.9 percent of the total. The 8 percent acquired by the DNVP, however, was sufficient for the two parties to wield a majority in the Reichstag. At its first meeting on March 23 the new Reichstag—under great pressure from the SA and the SS (Schutzstaffel; “Protective Echelon”), the elite corps of Nazis headed by Heinrich Himmler—voted in favour of the Enabling Act that allowed Hitler to ignore the constitution and to give his decrees the power of law.

My opponent runs a major corporation, and is running for political office for the first time. My opponent's published political platform states that he is foursquare for strong ethics, strong defense, and strong economic policy in government. However, his performance as a private citizen indicates that he is prone to nepotism, bribe-taking, and lining his and his family members' pockets at every opportunity. Despite the fact that he makes pretty speeches and is telegenic as all getout, my party thinks he'll stay true to form and be an utter bastard if elected.

Your proposal says I can't bring the nature of his character into play. Sorry, against.

My opponent runs a major corporation, and is running for political office for the first time. My opponent's published political platform states that he is foursquare for strong ethics, strong defense, and strong economic policy in government. However, his performance as a private citizen indicates that he is prone to nepotism, bribe-taking, and lining his and his family members' pockets at every opportunity. Despite the fact that he makes pretty speeches and is telegenic as all getout, my party thinks he'll stay true to form and be an utter bastard if elected.

Your proposal says I can't bring the nature of his character into play. Sorry, against.

Excellent point, i reconsider again, i will not support it, sorry.

I am strongly opposed to this proposal, because I know that you eat puppies and that makes you untrustworthy.

Nah, just kidding.

And they should deal with it themselves. Our poplace is not to be punished for the shortcomings of yours. Also, you should look into the resolutions that establish freedom of speech in the UN - you are in violation of the "Universal Bill of Rights Article 2": All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

It really is fabulous how nobody in Fass is ever homophobic, racist, bigoted or flawed in any way, but it's somewhat baffling that they seek to retain their right to be.

You want to quote resolutions? Let's try Stop Privacy Intrusion, Gay Rights, Religious Tolerance, The Universal Bill of Rights ("All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state." This sort of campaigning by an incumbent would rather look to be punishment on the part of the state.), Freedom of Humour (ends as soon as it affects another individual or organisation), Universal Freedom of Choice ("Approving of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency"). The right to express themselves doesn't seem to extend to the right to opress other people, judging by all those other resolutions. I particularly highling "Discrimination Accord" - which provides all citizens "The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence" and "The right to participate in government".

Your right to free speech ends where it harms someone else, and that's rather clearly enshrined in past resolutions.

Plus, occasionally arguments concerning politicians personally can be valid. For instance, if a politician had hidden links to corporations, it would not be wrong for opponents to point out his/her vested interests. Or if they were hiding some personal condition that could affect their ability to fill an important executive post, it would be right for opponents to point it out.

So if I added the clause "as long as the defect in question cannot be demonstrably proven to affect the candidate's judgement or ability to serve their term", you'd be okay with that then?

In some nations, the press might be unwilling to do this. What if the mainstream media was wholly state-controlled, or owned by people allied with one party, or they were simply too afraid of the government to undermine it?

If that's the case, then those nations are in violation of the Freedom of Press resolution.

Not always. A campaign may be based on lies, which should be revealed. Say a homophobic conservative party was promoting the use of some "cure" for homosexuality in a campaign, and was telling the electorate that homosexuality was like a disease that afflicts people and they ought to be forced to undergo treatment for it. Say a prominent member of the party was being touted as an example of the resounding success of the "treatments", but in secret they were frequently visiting gay brothels.

It would be good for this hypocrisy to be revealed, as it undermines the conservatives' arguments about the nature of homosexuality and their proposed "cure".

A campaign based on lines can already be attacked under the proposal as written. Attack the policy, not the policymaker.

OOC: Actually untrue. Hitler was appointed, and the Nazis did not gain power in a free election.

Conceded. It can still happen.

My opponent runs a major corporation, and is running for political office for the first time. My opponent's published political platform states that he is foursquare for strong ethics, strong defense, and strong economic policy in government. However, his performance as a private citizen indicates that he is prone to nepotism, bribe-taking, and lining his and his family members' pockets at every opportunity. Despite the fact that he makes pretty speeches and is telegenic as all getout, my party thinks he'll stay true to form and be an utter bastard if elected.

Your proposal says I can't bring the nature of his character into play. Sorry, against.

And what about if I include that new clause mentioned above?

The reason I posted this here was to try and get constructive criticism. Work with me here, people, not against me.

I am strongly opposed to this proposal, because I know that you eat puppies and that makes you untrustworthy.

Nah, just kidding.

Bah. Foiled again.

-Micro

Edited in a new clause at the end, as I realised that the worry might be that people use this to pass further restrictions based on this proposal. They still can, but they make themselves look stupid and their chances of success are crippled if they try to use this as a springboard...

Edited in a new clause at the end, as I realised that the worry might be that people use this to pass further restrictions based on this proposal. They still can, but they make themselves look stupid and their chances of success are crippled if they try to use this as a springboard...
Unfortunately, you can't do that. Proposals that restrict future proposals are not allowed.

(Must remind Hack to add that to the new official rules - it was in the old rules)

Feh. I thought I'd sidestepped that by pointing out that I wasn't actually preventing future proposals from doing that, just condemning them if they did.

It still needs to go, huh?

So the UN has a right to determine how my elections are run why?

So the UN has a right to determine how my elections are run why?

The UN already determines how your elections are run.

Do keep up.

The UN already determines how your elections are run.

Do keep up.
I don't think so. But nice try.

Cast your eyes at Citizen Rule Required, Universal Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Press, Fairness and Equality and Discrimination Accord if you decide to start thinking.

Cast your eyes at Citizen Rule Required, Universal Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Press, Fairness and Equality and Discrimination Accord if you decide to start thinking.
So the UN does have a stake in how the elections are run in UN nations, my mistake. This however does not validate your position where you feel further legislation is required.

Also the last bit doesn't make you witty :huhu:

snip

snip

Yeah, short snippity responses or put-downs typically only hurt the public imange of those who post them (there's no real personal harm you can do to someone over a forum). Cutesy responses such as "if you decide to start thinking" or "I don't think so. But nice try" aren't really necessary for communication. It's supposed to be a discussion forum, not a sitcom. If someone else is mistaken about something you wroteor asked or what not, it's really your responsibility to correct them and to do so politely.

So you want to now require, by UN decree, that I have free elections? I don't think so. This won't pass, and indeed, I call upon the monoarchies, dictatorships, and every non democratic government type to put this down. In my opinion, it would undermind what every other government in the world. I urge you to vote this down, if ever comes up for a vote.

So if I added the clause "as long as the defect in question cannot be demonstrably proven to affect the candidate's judgement or ability to serve their term", you'd be okay with that then?

No, since it's still an undue restriction on free speech. It is their right to run their campaign as they see fit, and if they outright lie, or make unlawful intrusions into others' privacy, we will deal with them under laws aimed at those things.

If that's the case, then those nations are in violation of the Freedom of Press resolution.

That resolution only included vague and non-binding terms like "appeals" and "urges". Therefore, it offers no legal barrier to restricting the freedom of the press - just disapproval.

A campaign based on lines can already be attacked under the proposal as written. Attack the policy, not the policymaker.

But the case against the policy can be all the more convincing if the policymaker can be demonstrated to be a lying hypocrite on the issue. Depending on the circumstances, the electorate deserve to know.

So you want to now require, by UN decree, that I have free elections?

Actually, this proposal is to limit the freedoms of those participating in elections.

It really is fabulous how nobody in Fass is ever homophobic, racist, bigoted or flawed in any way, but it's somewhat baffling that they seek to retain their right to be.

Many people in Fass are that way, and you know what? They're allowed to express themselves. That's what makes our nation great in spite of their views.

You want to quote resolutions? Let's try Stop Privacy Intrusion, Gay Rights, Religious Tolerance, The Universal Bill of Rights ("All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state." This sort of campaigning by an incumbent would rather look to be punishment on the part of the state.), Freedom of Humour (ends as soon as it affects another individual or organisation), Universal Freedom of Choice ("Approving of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency"). The right to express themselves doesn't seem to extend to the right to oppress other people, judging by all those other resolutions. I particularly highling "Discrimination Accord" - which provides all citizens "The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence" and "The right to participate in government".

None of those limits free speech in the way you wish to, and speech is in no way oppression. If you think it is, then I think you need to buy a dictionary. The suppression of statements, on the other hand, is oppression!

Those resolutions you mention either deal with actions or with threats of violence, and several of them are completely irrelevant to this discussion (yes, you fail miserably to argue for their relevance), and as has been already explained to you numerous times, the citizens themselves decide if they wish to use pertinent laws to protect themselves from it. It is not up to the state to do it for them. Those resolutions you mention have nothing to do with your trying to undermine freedom of speech and stifle any sort of political discussion and public discussion, not to mention the rights of people to share information and to partake of it.

None the less, this does not change the fact that your resolution is in violation of the freedom of speech clause of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and possibly even of the resolution on discrimination you quote. Quite the poor attempt to defend an undefendable position by you, I must say.

Your right to free speech ends where it harms someone else, and that's rather clearly enshrined in past resolutions.

You seem to think that the only laws that matter are UN resolutions, and in that you are mistaken. And once again, it is not speech, but actions or threats of action that are restricted by those other resolutions.

Yeah, short snippity responses or put-downs typically only hurt the public imange of those who post them (there's no real personal harm you can do to someone over a forum). Cutesy responses such as "if you decide to start thinking" or "I don't think so. But nice try" aren't really necessary for communication. It's supposed to be a discussion forum, not a sitcom. If someone else is mistaken about something you wroteor asked or what not, it's really your responsibility to correct them and to do so politely.

You're right. My apologies, but I was getting put out at that point.

Y'know, once I've taken that last clause back out again, I'm just gonna put this one into the pool. I'm fed up with defending an innocent proposal trying to encourage fair, sensible elections against people who don't really seem to approve of anything the UN does in any way, shape or form.

We like an awful lot of what the UN does. It's just that we hold freedom of expression as one of our most treasured rights.

We wouldn't mind a proposal encouraging politicians to try and raise the quality of democratic debate by focusing on policies and philosophies. We just don't want actual restrictions.