NationStates Jolt Archive

wanting to try this. first attempt so let me know what you think and how i can fix this or if it is even needed. looking for endorsers if you are interested and believe it is worthwhile.

NSUN Global Safe Harbor Draft

With new technologies it is becoming clear that Safe Harbor, limiting viewing of adult/mature content between 10 P.M.-6 A.M., is no longer a safeguard for protecting minors.

These steps will be taken to ensure the protection of minors in all NSUN nations taking into account new outlets for such materials, such as Internet and Satellite broadcasting.

a) All NSUN nations will adopt the .adu extention for all web content of a sexually explicit nature, either photo, video, audio or text. Each site that is found to be in non-compliance will be fined by the country of origin until compliance is met.

b) Each NSUN member will be given guidelines as to what is considered sexually explicit, as determined through current definitions, laws and common sense to protect legitimate sexual/disease information sources. These fines will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 10,000 and not exceed 500,000 in offending country of origin currency.

c) All websites containing the .adu extension will be time blocked until the safe harbor period of 10 P.M.- 6 A.M. of each member nations standard time.

d) All satellite transmissions of foreign countries that contain sexually explicit material will be placed on a specified transponder and channel to allow for time-shifting to the safe harbor period of each member country as per the recieving nations standard time.

e) This safe harbor will include any and all pay websites/services/channels. The cost of these services will be pro-rated for the reduced charges, that will come with limited access, with compensation being made to these entities through the country of origin through budget allocations and fines collected for offending outlets.

f) Prerecorded sexually explicit material (book, video, download, ect) owned by any citizen of a NSUN member country will not be subject to these laws as long as viewed in the privacy of ones own dwelling. If prerecorded materials are shown to minors, and it is proven, then criminal charges my be brought against the individual as per the member nations laws. In addition to these potential charges, a fine will be levied against the citizen, if found guilty, that will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 1,000 and not to exceed 50,000 of the citizens currency.

Global Safe Harbor will protect minors from viewing sexually explicit materials through outlets that are, until now, under little to no accountability as well as protect the average citizen who wishes to see this material. The cost of enforcement will come from the offenders as well as reward those who operate within the guidelines of this proposal.

Looks fairly well written and comprehensive. Nothing leapt off the page as being blatantly illegal, with the possible exception of conflicts with prior resolutions.

That said ... No!. The UN doesn't need to nanny my nation's children. We'll let the parents handle that. If we feel a need to restrict content nationally, we'll consider it. We would NEVER consider imposing our idea of what is inappropriate for children on our neighbors, and would be insulted if they attempted to do the same.

One more thing. Like all the nuclear limitation proposal, this one falls apart when you consider the two-thirds of NationStates that aren't NSUN members. Putting up a fence around one-third of the garden won't keep many rabbits out of your lettuce.

Nope, can't support.

With new technologies it is becoming clear that Safe Harbor, limiting viewing of adult/mature content between 10 P.M.-6 A.M., is no longer a safeguard for protecting minors.


These steps will be taken to ensure the protection of minors in all NSUN nations taking into account new outlets for such materials, such as Internet and Satellite broadcasting.

I personally believe that public decency only takes precedence in a broadcast (get it for free) setting. If a customer is paying for the programming, the producer can give them just about anything they darn well please. For internet, cable, and satellite, it's the parents' responsibilities to either not allow access to explicit channels, or not buy the channels in the first place.

I think that if this is going to create a 'safe harbor' or whatever, then it needs to be a list of suggestions or a committee (not a requirement, since one country will have just as good, different ideas about how to protect their children) and it needs to only apply to free broadcasting.

Also, make certain you're not crossing over into real life (real life references aren't allowed in proposals) when you say "Safe Harbor...is no longer a safeguard for protecting minors."

a) All NSUN nations will adopt the .adu extention for all web content of a sexually explicit nature, either photo, video, audio or text. Each site that is found to be in non-compliance will be fined by the country of origin until compliance is met.

b) Each NSUN member will be given guidelines as to what is considered sexually explicit, as determined through current definitions, laws and common sense to protect legitimate sexual/disease information sources. These fines will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 10,000 and not exceed 500,000 in offending country of origin currency.

Like I said, I really don't think these are called for. Firstly, currencies can be really inflated. 500,000 Palens might only transfer to $5 USD. Secondly, I think individual nations know what's right for the enforcement of this safe harbor (which I disagree with in the first place), more so than any UN proposal writer.


c) All websites containing the .adu extension will be time blocked until the safe harbor period of 10 P.M.- 6 A.M. of each member nations standard time.

d) All satellite transmissions of foreign countries that contain sexually explicit material will be placed on a specified transponder and channel to allow for time-shifting to the safe harbor period of each member country as per the receiving nations standard time.

e) This safe harbor will include any and all pay websites/services/channels. The cost of these services will be pro-rated for the reduced charges, that will come with limited access, with compensation being made to these entities through the country of origin through budget allocations and fines collected for offending outlets.

Again, as a private citizen it's my right to view what I please for my dollar (or palen or whatever). If you don't like that irresponsible parents leave on the "gettin' busy!" channel for their kids are watching, then make it negligent in your country--a crime. I really don't think this is warranted. It RL, there aren't such restrictions on satellite and cable for just this reason. Unfortunately (since I personally hate that people do it), it's a customer's right to view smut if he pays for it. I have yet to see how it's all member governments' rights (and thus resolution-worthy) to intrude on this.


Global Safe Harbor will protect minors from viewing sexually explicit materials through outlets that are, until now, under little to no accountability as well as protect the average citizen who wishes to see this material. The cost of enforcement will come from the offenders as well as reward those who operate within the guidelines of this proposal.

They've had no accountability for a reason. The average citizen isn't viewing satellite or cable--unless he pays and becomes a customer. As a customer he is buying whatever he gets privately--away from public indecency jurisdiction. Perhaps a parent endangering a child by allowing them to view such things is worth criminal action.

"When will the madness stop? How many of these dogooder resolutions are we supposed to field, before someone realizes that parents of the universe must take care of their children? How many of the teachers of the universe are treated like nothing more than nannies for the parents of the universe?

The answers to all these questions...Now and Too many. The madness must stop. Parents, not the UN, must take care of their children. Darkumbrian parents care for their children. Indeed, when a couple becomes pregnant, they are registered by their doctor. At that point, the government ensures that they receive the appropriate medical care for mother and child. Once the child is born, the parents are given a choice. One of them will stay at home with their children, until the child reached school age. After that, the parent is returned to the workforce.

We need not this bill, nor any other like it. The parents of the universe MUST take responsibility for their, and their children's, actions. "

First, you appear to be basing this on pre-existing regulations restricting normal broadcast TV. But these don't exist in the NSUN.

Second, we will not restrict freedom of expression this way. Blocking systems for individual TVs and internet access, set by childrens' legal guardians are quite sufficient. We might consider charging parents with negligence if they have exposed their children to inappropriate material and this can be shown in court to have had serious negative effects on the child. But we will not shunt any and all sexual material, as set out by undefined regulations relying on "common sense" (a poor basis for NSUN law, as perceptions of what constitutes sensible vary wildly between cultures), to arbitrary times of day.

Nor do we accept that all minors must be denied access to these materials. We define a human minor as under 18, but our age of consent for sex is lower, and it seems absurd to allow minors to have sex but to forbid them from watching porn.

If you wish to spend money dealing with our childrens' relationships with and attitudes towards sex, it would be more productive to put the huge amounts of money that would be needed to enforce staggered satellite transmissions and the internet regulations into high-quality, honest and comprehensive sex and sexual health education programs.

I would support this.

But there is a really fine line between being protective of your children, and being overprotective. I would rather have the companies who host these porn sites have a page where it says "You must be 18 or older to enter" and to enter they must give a valid credit card number even if they don't charge you. Although i know that some kids who are 17 and under have credit cards, this will cut down majorly on the amount of children who do view porn sites.

But there are ways other than blocking times for these web sites and stuff.

So in order to view this material, you're forcing people to get a credit card - what if a responsible adult chooses not to get a credit card? It's their decision, and you shouldn't pass laws that punish them for this choice.

Plus, the fewer people you hand your credit card number out to on the web, the better.

Not to mention the fact that kids can easily find their parents' credit cards and use the number.

c) All websites containing the .adu extension will be time blocked until the safe harbor period of 10 P.M.- 6 A.M. of each member nations standard time.What about those of us who work a graveyard shift and would like to look at smut when we get home? If everything is restricted to .adu, why do you need hours?

Also, you still have the problem of those things that are on the line between smut and art. Tastefully done nudes, for instance.

Legislation based entirely off of contraversial moral issues has no place in international law. I don't think it has much place in national law, either, of course, but that's just me.

Don't force this up the ladder - Morality is different for different people. The people need to decide what is moral, not the governments, and certainly not the governments governing the governments governing the people.

Looks fairly well written and comprehensive. Nothing leapt off the page as being blatantly illegal, with the possible exception of conflicts with prior resolutions.

That said ... No!. The UN doesn't need to nanny my nation's children. We'll let the parents handle that. If we feel a need to restrict content nationally, we'll consider it. We would NEVER consider imposing our idea of what is inappropriate for children on our neighbors, and would be insulted if they attempted to do the same.

One more thing. Like all the nuclear limitation proposal, this one falls apart when you consider the two-thirds of NationStates that aren't NSUN members. Putting up a fence around one-third of the garden won't keep many rabbits out of your lettuce.

Nope, can't support.

I have to agree. We cannot enforce nor control this proposal if it is passed. Very well written, however the mechanics of it just wouldn't work.

Despite personal feelings, I will not be supporting this issue as it refers to a global change, which is not possible under the current capacities of the UN.

Thank you.

thanks for the feedback!

i missed the rule that you should not base proposals on a current law but i started this game and finished my class on media management about the same time.

the scary part is that this is a very possible outcome in the United States, i would say, within the next 5-10 years.

there is the ongoing argument that .adu should be instituted as required to make blocking of such sites easier without the blanket restrictions that some schools/universities/libraries have tried in the past that also limited access to such information as breast examinations and AIDS.

also with the Howard Stern debacle that is still having reprecussions, his move from public airwaves to satellite radio, has led the FCC to believe that he has moved out of their jurisdiction. The FCC has made announcements on numerous occasions that pay cable/satellite services should be under their control.

i am sorry that i took a real world issue and made it a proposal but i was curious to write one and felt that, right, wrong or indifferent, that this is where such a law would be heading.

Disclaimer: I'm not even going to read all of what's already been said here because I don't find this resolution worth my time. As a result, some of what I say here may have already been pointed out or may have been disputed already. But these are the major problems I have with this resolution.

With new technologies it is becoming clear that Safe Harbor, limiting viewing of adult/mature content between 10 P.M.-6 A.M., is no longer a safeguard for protecting minors.

These steps will be taken to ensure the protection of minors in all NSUN nations taking into account new outlets for such materials, such as Internet and Satellite broadcasting.

Okay, this is hardly an international problem, but rather an intranational one. Some nations - for instance, mine - may not have any "Safe Harbor" laws. However, I'll read on, anyway.

a) All NSUN nations will adopt the .adu extention for all web content of a sexually explicit nature, either photo, video, audio or text. Each site that is found to be in non-compliance will be fined by the country of origin until compliance is met.

Okay, this totally screws up my ability to find porn with relative speed and accuracy.

b) Each NSUN member will be given guidelines as to what is considered sexually explicit, as determined through current definitions, laws and common sense to protect legitimate sexual/disease information sources. These fines will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 10,000 and not exceed 500,000 in offending country of origin currency.

Okay, first of all, what is mandated here is vague as all hell. Secondly, 10,000 to 500,000 what?

d) All satellite transmissions of foreign countries that contain sexually explicit material will be placed on a specified transponder and channel to allow for time-shifting to the safe harbor period of each member country as per the recieving nations standard time.

Do have any idea how much that would cost, all for the sake of parents that can't be trusted to watch their own kids?

f) Prerecorded sexually explicit material (book, video, download, ect) owned by any citizen of a NSUN member country will not be subject to these laws as long as viewed in the privacy of ones own dwelling. If prerecorded materials are shown to minors, and it is proven, then criminal charges my be brought against the individual as per the member nations laws. In addition to these potential charges, a fine will be levied against the citizen, if found guilty, that will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 1,000 and not to exceed 50,000 of the citizens currency.

What if 1,000 to 50,000 is chump change in that nation? For instance, what if coins that the average citizen owns go up to 100,000 on their own?

Global Safe Harbor will protect minors from viewing sexually explicit materials through outlets that are, until now, under little to no accountability as well as protect the average citizen who wishes to see this material. The cost of enforcement will come from the offenders as well as reward those who operate within the guidelines of this proposal.

Add "because we all know that parents aren't smart enough to do this on their own."

Okay, this totally screws up my ability to find porn with relative speed and accuracy.


:p

This will not stand!!! Fatus Maxians would rather die then support a resolution that would result in this!!! :D

And here we thought this was about navies...

wanting to try this. first attempt so let me know what you think and how i can fix this or if it is even needed. looking for endorsers if you are interested and believe it is worthwhile.

NSUN Global Safe Harbor Draft

With new technologies it is becoming clear that Safe Harbor, limiting viewing of adult/mature content between 10 P.M.-6 A.M., is no longer a safeguard for protecting minors.

Who does this? We certainly don't.



These steps will be taken to ensure the protection of minors in all NSUN nations taking into account new outlets for such materials, such as Internet and Satellite broadcasting.

Protect them from what?



a) All NSUN nations will adopt the .adu extention for all web content of a sexually explicit nature, either photo, video, audio or text. Each site that is found to be in non-compliance will be fined by the country of origin until compliance is met.

Oh, I can see the horrible mess this will make of internet communications for a good long time...



b) Each NSUN member will be given guidelines as to what is considered sexually explicit, as determined through current definitions, laws and common sense to protect legitimate sexual/disease information sources. These fines will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 10,000 and not exceed 500,000 in offending country of origin currency.

You're not serious, are you? Because we really don't care...no, wait, that's not quite right. Vastiva pays attention to what is "sexually explicit" in other nations. That way we can saturate and seize their market for such. Amazing what ankle pictures will go for in... *ahem*



c) All websites containing the .adu extension will be time blocked until the safe harbor period of 10 P.M.- 6 A.M. of each member nations standard time.

Hell no. That's censorship, and we'll have no part of it.



d) All satellite transmissions of foreign countries that contain sexually explicit material will be placed on a specified transponder and channel to allow for time-shifting to the safe harbor period of each member country as per the recieving nations standard time.

Not going to happen.



e) This safe harbor will include any and all pay websites/services/channels. The cost of these services will be pro-rated for the reduced charges, that will come with limited access, with compensation being made to these entities through the country of origin through budget allocations and fines collected for offending outlets.

Now this is entirely low, hitting in the pocketbook. If an adult wants to watch porn, on their own time, so be it. We don't care at what hour that is.



f) Prerecorded sexually explicit material (book, video, download, ect) owned by any citizen of a NSUN member country will not be subject to these laws as long as viewed in the privacy of ones own dwelling. If prerecorded materials are shown to minors, and it is proven, then criminal charges my be brought against the individual as per the member nations laws. In addition to these potential charges, a fine will be levied against the citizen, if found guilty, that will be based on a formula of severity and number of instances to begin with 1,000 and not to exceed 50,000 of the citizens currency.

And how would this affect our "Instructional Pornography", hmmm? Considering this is a required course come puberty....



Global Safe Harbor will protect minors from viewing sexually explicit materials through outlets that are, until now, under little to no accountability as well as protect the average citizen who wishes to see this material. The cost of enforcement will come from the offenders as well as reward those who operate within the guidelines of this proposal.

We see no reason to "protect" minors from biological functions. Support denied.

With new technologies it is becoming clear that Safe Harbor, limiting viewing of adult/mature content between 10 P.M.-6 A.M., is no longer a safeguard for protecting minors.

Um, who says every nation follows the Western concept that children must be 'protected' from sexually explicit material, as if there is something intrinsically harmful about it? And why are you not concerned with 'protecting' anyone from depictions of violence?

d) All satellite transmissions of foreign countries that contain sexually explicit material will be placed on a specified transponder and channel to allow for time-shifting to the safe harbor period of each member country as per the recieving nations standard time.

Seems like one of those illegal 'effect on non-members' resolution components, since you'd be blocking my satellites. Nice.

The cost of enforcement will come from the offenders as well as reward those who operate within the guidelines of this proposal.

Also seems like 'effect on non-members.' Or 'useless resolution.'

Sorry there is no way I could support this as it is way too restrictive and goes well and truly overboard.

I can't see why all the single adult people who live on their own and couples who don't have kids should have to put up with these severe restrictions and censorship just because of those families who do have underage kids. When push comes to shove its up to the parents to decide what their kids are and aren't exposed to.

One little thing. When I read the title of this proposal, "Safe harbour" I thought it was going to be about something to do with shipping of the marine variety. For those of us who aren't American? (is that where this term is used?) could you consider something a bit more international for the title that will let us all know what the proposal is about :).

For those of us who aren't American? (is that where this term is used?)
OOC: If it's an Americian term, I've never heard of it.

We will not support this resolution for the reasons already mentioned.

yeah its an american term.

came about from FCC v Pacifica in the supreme court. was originally 12 am - 6 am but that was found to be too restrictive and made to 10 pm- 6 am. this ruling added more definition to the miller standard brought on by miller v california which pretty much set the test for national indecency/obsenity in the United States from then previous rulings that obscenity was not protected by first amendment, like in Roth v Untied States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts

as i said, i misread the policies of making proposals in game on real world issues. wanted to try to write a proposal and this debate was still fresh in my mind from my media studies class capstone class.

during research and discussion it is evident that the FCC wants to get their hands on pay cable/satellite and i wrote a proposal based on where i believe a real life issue would be heading in America in the very near future.

The Holy Empire of Shemiramoth is split on this idea. On one hand we feel that more censorship is good, but on the other hand we feel the regulations put forth are not strong enough. We would like to put forth a motion to revise the draft to state that all media contents regardless of nature shall be created and maintained by each nation’s retrospective government, in an attempt to further stifle the spread of obscene material among the masses.

Far too long have ideas that our government deems unpatriotic gone circulated freely among the masses. It is our hope that by severely limiting the information given to the people, it will make it far easier to control the populous. It would also be our intention that any citizen found to be circumventing the enacted safeguards be put in a prison facility for whatever period deemed necessary by the government.

The Holy Empire of Shemiramoth is split on this idea. On one hand we feel that more censorship is good, but on the other hand we feel the regulations put forth are not strong enough. We would like to put forth a motion to revise the draft to state that all media contents regardless of nature shall be created and maintained by each nation’s retrospective government, in an attempt to further stifle the spread of obscene material among the masses.

Far too long have ideas that our government deems unpatriotic gone circulated freely among the masses. It is our hope that by severely limiting the information given to the people, it will make it far easier to control the populous. It would also be our intention that any citizen found to be circumventing the enacted safeguards be put in a prison facility for whatever period deemed necessary by the government.

We will never accept any NSUN proposal trying to enforce such restrictions of freedom of expression and attempts to manipulate people, and we will do all we can to oppose ideologies such as yours and to destroy their oppressive grip on people throughout the UN.

The people are not there to be the slaves of the government. The government is there to serve the people.

One little thing. When I read the title of this proposal, "Safe harbour" I thought it was going to be about something to do with shipping of the marine variety. For those of us who aren't American? (is that where this term is used?) could you consider something a bit more international for the title that will let us all know what the proposal is about :).
Particularly as the term 'safe harbour' is used worldwide in the context of data protection... Perhaps something like 'Explicit Broadcast Restrictons' might be more descriptive.

[edit: apologies for not realising that Jolt supports signatures in a different way from the old NS forums...]

We're unaffected. Due to the large number of worlds we cover, it is always 10PM-6AM within DLE, though not always everywhere at once. You have the problem of what to do with nations that manage to have entire worlds or nations that manage to span all time zones.