NationStates Jolt Archive

Please Delegates. Support this proposal for the interests of public safety and for the sake of men rights. Men should have a choice over whether to engage in lustful activity. To force sexual images onto the public is a violition of a mans right to choose to be free from lust.



Roadside Billboard Reform

Ban on Sexual Images on Roadside Billboards

Whilst the UN must respect freedom to advertise and freedom of expression, it has been brought to our attention that having images of a sexual nature (such as women in underwear) on giant billboards at the side of roads have led to many serious road traffic accidents. Male drivers in particular have been distracted by the images and ended up crashing their cars and dying.

Not only is this a safety issue, but it is also a human rights one. Men are constantly bombarded with sexual images whether or not they want see them. This is a violation of men’s human rights as many men might be struggling with sexual addiction or they might be a Catholic priest. (Therefore these images affect their ability to do their job) A man should have the right to choose when or how to engage with lust. He must not have lustful images forced upon him against his will. The same goes for women.

We propose that all billboards or posters in view of road users shall be free of sexual imagery. But this does not effect the right of companies to use sexual imagery in other forms of advertising; such as in magazines and the internet.

Violation of freedom of expression. It is also a completely ridiculous and unworthy matter for the UN to get involved in. You do not have a right not to be offended, and you most certainly should not be granted such a right over the rights of other people to express themselves.

But do keep submitting several resolutions at once. You split the vote and attention of the delegates, ensuring that none of them will pass, which pleases us.

Violation of freedom of expression. It is also a completely ridiculous and unworthy matter for the UN to get involved in. You do not have a right not to be offended, and you most certainly should not be granted such a right over the rights of other people to express themselves.

But do keep submitting several resolutions at once. You split the vote and attention of the delegates, ensuring that none of them will pass, which pleases us.
Does your freedom of expression include the right to stick up posters of naked children?

Anyhow this is largely a health and safety issue. If it is illegal for someone to use a cell phone whilst driving because they could crash, then why should a distraction such as this be illegal?

With rights (such as freedom of expression) come responsibilities.
You wouldnt like a Christian missionary to shove his beliefs in your face, but your prepared to allow companies to force sexual images onto people.

If a person was watching TV and something offended them they can turn it off. However if this offensive thing is in public they cannot escape from it.


You do not have a right not to be offendedMaybe not, but you do have a right to escape from the thing that is offending you. With an offensive play, you can walk out. Or an offensive book, you can put it down. But the man in this situation might really need to go down that street (they may even be an Ambulance Driver) with no choice but to have a distraction like that.

Does your freedom of expression include the right to stick up posters of naked children?

Yes, it does. Child pornography is something completely different than naked children. Our society has no stigma on the beautiful, naked body.

Anyhow this is largely a health and safety issue.

No, it isn't. It is a freedom of expression issue, but you are trying to use a flawed safety issue as an excuse.

If it is illegal for someone to use a cell phone whilst driving because they could crash, then why should a distraction such as this be illegal?

It is not illegal for someone to speak into their cell phone and drive.

With rights (such as freedom of expression) come responsibilities.
You wouldnt like a Christian missionary to shove his beliefs in your face, but your prepared to allow companies to force sexual images onto people.

We have no laws on missionaries. They are treated like everyone else, with the same rights to express themselves, and they must face the same immigrant regulations as anyone else.

Also, an ad forces nothing on you. Don't look at it if it bothers you.

If a person was watching TV and something offended them they can turn it off. However if this offensive thing is in public they cannot escape from it.

Yes they can. Nobody is forcing them to look at it.

Maybe not, but you do have a right to escape from the thing that is offending you.

Yup. And how do you do that? Just a tip: It isn't by looking at it.

With an offensive play, you can walk out. Or an offensive book, you can put it down. But the man in this situation might really need to go down that street (they may even be an Ambulance Driver) with no choice but to have a distraction like that.

Nobody is forcing them to look at it. Again, you have no right to not be offended, and that right should most certainly not be granted over the rights of people to express themselves.

Proposal irrelevant.


Why?


When is the United Nations going to stop attempting to tell me how to run my country?


In the past month I have seen more irrelevant proposals come out of this august delegation, than I have ever heard of. This is a nation matter....NOT A MATTER FOR THE UN.

The Delegate from Darkumbria and Northwind is very tired of reading proposal after proposal attempting to dictate the manor in which my country is ALLOWED to govern itself.

I am not a member of your country, I am my own. I do not follow your laws, I follow the ones that I have set up for my country. Please stop trying to tell what I can watch on TV, can teach in my classrooms, see on the side of MY roads, and do with my nation's soil. You don't own my country, I do.

This proposal is irrelevant due to its nature to, once again, tell the leaders of every nation in the UN that they have no rights to govern themselves. This yet another attempt to village rule the universe....You have no power to enforce, as you have no power in my country. Please do not assume that you do.

I have to agree, this is not a UN matter. What if a nation, via referendum, unanimously votes in favor of sexy billboards in public? Would they still be allowed to view them? Under this proposal, they wouldn't. The truth is, most men don't object to this. Most men have no problem with seeing an ice cold beer craddled between the lucious, scantily clad breasts of a gorgeous woman whose sensuous curves little to the imagination and who long, exquisite and uncovered legs stretch out invitingly, while her beautiful smile radiates sex appeal like a small sun, and her perfectly toned naked abdomen lays there, ripe for the taking... but I digress. There are some that do, but they are vastly outnumbered. :cool:

Kingdom of Heaven I can sum up my resopose to your proposal in two words, Hell no!

And Darkumbria if your interested in preserving a nations right to gevern themselves you should consider joining the National Sovereignty Organization, you'll find the link in my sig.

With rights (such as freedom of expression) come responsibilities.
You wouldnt like a Christian missionary to shove his beliefs in your face, but your prepared to allow companies to force sexual images onto people.Would you support a ban on Christian billboards as well?

Naked children? Apparently there's at least one national representative who has never seen a diaper commercial before. And strangely enough, I've never heard of a case where a baby's nude behind has inspired uncontrollable lust (and I'd rather it remains that way, if possible).

And what about a woman's "right to be free from lust"? Am I to believe that only men get horny? My experiences in Krioval suggest otherwise. If a person lacks the willpower to not give into sexual impulses to the point that a billboard or advertisement pushes one over the proverbial edge, how is that the advertiser's fault? And honestly, since when is an orgasm such a terrible thing. I am tempted to suggest that if some conservative monotheists were to have more of them, maybe they wouldn't be in such a rush to deny the rest of us.

Oh, and for the record, Krioval has already banned child pornography.

When is the United Nations going to stop attempting to tell me how to run my country? Just a guess, but I'd say "never".

That's kinda what it does, ya know? Every Resolution is the United Nations telling you how to run your country, not just the ones you dislike.


***

National Sovereignty arguments aside, there's nothing illegal about this concept, provided it's submitted under 'Moral Decency'. Of course, since there really isn't a Proposal written here, it's hard to tell...

To paraphrase Jesus:

"It is easier for a camal to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a moral decency proposal to pass thorugh the UN"

To paraphrase Jesus:

"It is easier for a camal to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a moral decency proposal to pass thorugh the UN"

ROFLMAO!!! :p :D

Please Delegates. Support this proposal for the interests of public safety and for the sake of men rights. Men should have a choice over whether to engage in lustful activity. To force sexual images onto the public is a violition of a mans right to choose to be free from lust.

To force lustful images off of the highway is a violation of freedom of speech, and a violation of man's right to have lustful thoughts from a random billboard.

Ya know, for someone trying to prove they are liberal, this is certainly not doing it. All this amounts to is the same old doctrine hidden behind an attempt at clever deception. It won't work.

Roadside Billboard Reform

Ban on Sexual Images on Roadside Billboards

Whilst the UN must respect freedom to advertise and freedom of expression, it has been brought to our attention that having images of a sexual nature (such as women in underwear) on giant billboards at the side of roads have led to many serious road traffic accidents. Male drivers in particular have been distracted by the images and ended up crashing their cars and dying.

The solution is simple: Try training your drivers to pay attention to the roads. Or abolish cars.

Not only is this a safety issue, but it is also a human rights one. Men are constantly bombarded with sexual images whether or not they want see them. This is a violation of men’s human rights as many men might be struggling with sexual addiction or they might be a Catholic priest. (Therefore these images affect their ability to do their job) A man should have the right to choose when or how to engage with lust. He must not have lustful images forced upon him against his will. The same goes for women.

Images are only found to be lustful if people say they are lustful. You wsh to be rid of lustfull images? Teach people that the human body is natural and not something to lust after, and then allow as much nudity as they want. In other words, take the advice of nudist colonies. Removing the advertising doesn't actually solve anything.

We propose that all billboards or posters in view of road users shall be free of sexual imagery. But this does not effect the right of companies to use sexual imagery in other forms of advertising; such as in magazines and the internet.

If you've ever dealt with the "seedier" side of people, you would know that anything and everything can be sexual imagery. And the explanations behind them would sometimes make even a succubus blush. Basically, to do this you must ban roadsigns completely.

What, so only straight men are ever smitten by lust? What about images of shirtless men - using your reasoning, this is sure to distract straight women and gay guys. If you're going to go down this path of getting rid of sexually provocative posters, at least make sure you're consistent.

What about a man's right to die with a really big smile on his face?

Considering our public transportation system is the primary method of moving around, and road travel density is very low in Vastiva - we have no problems with our billboards.

No support for this sort of suppression of free expression.

No support for this.

Not an UN issue. This is a state issue and should be left up to individual nations to regulate as they see fit.

If sexy billboards are a problem in your nation, then you can ban them in your nation. However, what we allow on billboards in our nation is our business.

I also find this proposal sexist and offensive as its aim is to impose someone else's religious morals on all UN nations. If your men have a problem with lust, then send them to the legal brothels you have in your nation (thanks to the Sex industry workers act resolution) and they can release their frustrations there.

If it is valid to ban sexual images because they distract drivers, then we had best start banning all kinds of things from the roads.

For starters, nobody should have custom number plates or stickers on their cars - reading them might distract drivers!

We're going to have to ban cool sports cars too, because we all know that men are incapable of keeping their eyes on the road ahead when driving alongside such abominations.

Restaurants by the roadside might distract hungry drivers, so they'll have to be disguised.

And what about small children in cars? They too can be something of a distraction. I suggest a UN-wide ban on carrying any children under 10 in cars!

Seriously, this is absurd. Men do not have "a right to be free from lust" (OOC: controlling men's lust is the same argument used in reality to force women by law to hide their entire bodies from sight in many places) - they can try exercising a little self-control.

Please Delegates. Support this proposal for the interests of public safety and for the sake of men rights. Men should have a choice over whether to engage in lustful activity. To force sexual images onto the public is a violition of a mans right to choose to be free from lust.

LMAO!

Roadside Billboard Reform

Ban on Sexual Images on Roadside Billboards

Whilst the UN must respect freedom to advertise and freedom of expression, it has been brought to our attention that having images of a sexual nature (such as women in underwear) on giant billboards at the side of roads have led to many serious road traffic accidents. Male drivers in particular have been distracted by the images and ended up crashing their cars and dying.

Prove it.

What about protecting homosexuals and women from seeing sexy pictures of men on the road? I guess they don't count. /nitpick.

Not only is this a safety issue, but it is also a human rights one. Men are constantly bombarded with sexual images whether or not they want see them. This is a violation of men’s human rights as many men might be struggling with sexual addiction or they might be a Catholic priest. (Therefore these images affect their ability to do their job) A man should have the right to choose when or how to engage with lust. He must not have lustful images forced upon him against his will. The same goes for women.

*sigh* A proposal should not be a soap box to preach all about the horrible world we live in. It should be specific, instead of wandering off to catholic priests and bombardment of sexual images. Thanks for the little side note about women.

We propose that all billboards or posters in view of road users shall be free of sexual imagery. But this does not effect the right of companies to use sexual imagery in other forms of advertising; such as in magazines and the internet.

This could possibly be a good proposal. As it stands, it is not. If you really want to tackle the "bombardment" of sexual imagery, leave your religion at the door, and be general while staying on topic. Not every nation is the same.

Those poor, poor straight Catholic men. Have they so lost their willpower that they require anything sexually suggestive to be removed from other countries on the off chance they might visit that country and inadvertently gaze upon a scantily clad woman and instantly be consumed with insatiable lust? Goodness, that's sad.

And in Krioval, the population of homosexual men and heterosexual women is approximately 58% of all Kriovalians (18% are the gay men and 40% are the straight women - for reference, 6% are lesbians and 36% are straight guys; if one wants to count bisexuality, take about a point away from each side, as the incidence is about one in twenty-five to fifty). Thus, advertisers wisely show more sexually suggestive images of men in Krioval, though it roughly balances out. And surprisingly, there are few problems with "uncontrollable lust". Maybe it's because we actually educate our children on the issues of sexuality and sexual expression without the sanctimony.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

This is a violation of men’s human rights as many men might be struggling with sexual addiction or they might be a Catholic priest. (Therefore these images affect their ability to do their job)

Why must you constantly bash Catholics?! We are not all sex-starved pedophilics inquistors who burn Protestants at the stake! We're not idolaters, the pope is not the antichrist, and all that other bullsh*t you read in your J.T. Chick tracts!

Leave your bigotry at the door, and write better proposals, and then I might have something nice to say.

This is not an issue for the UN.

Each nation can make up there own minds on this one. Forcing a nation with agnostic or atheist tendencies into something like this is foolish. Religious nations can pass their own laws as they see fit for this topic.

Even with the fact that I find this UN body to be painfully liberal and with little regard to those of religious foundations I could not support this proposal.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Those poor, poor straight Catholic men. Have they so lost their willpower that they require anything sexually suggestive to be removed from other countries on the off chance they might visit that country and inadvertently gaze upon a scantily clad woman and instantly be consumed with insatiable lust? Goodness, that's sad.

Heeeeyyyyy.... Saint Uriel is a Catholic nation and we don't want to be associated with this foolishness. We're happy to let our men have their Victoria's Secret catalogues and billboards.

*bumps Saint Uriel up in the "Countries of Acceptable Travel" listing*

Alright, hate of censorship aside, let me ask everyone here two simple questions.

1.) How many times has everyone here heard of a car flying off of a road into a ditch, lake, or pole?

2.) How many times has everyone here heard the driver of said wreck say, "Well, I was driving along when that giant billboard of a lady trying on bras caught my eye, and I just lost control," before the Kingdom of Heaven suggested such a possibility?

I rest my case.

Alright, hate of censorship aside, let me ask everyone here two simple questions.

1.) How many times has everyone here heard of a car flying off of a road into a ditch, lake, or pole?

2.) How many times has everyone here heard the driver of said wreck say, "Well, I was driving along when that giant billboard of a lady trying on bras caught my eye, and I just lost control," before the Kingdom of Heaven suggested such a possibility?

I rest my case.

1) Often.
2) Never.

Well said. Obviously, the arguement is a load of horsepucky, so this particular proposal needs to be buried or burned.

Well said. Obviously, the arguement is a load of horsepucky, so this particular proposal needs to be buried or burned.
Preferably both.

What was it Bart Simpson said when Homer sat him in front of a smoking ad billboard for a whole day to cure his supposed "gayness" through exposure to the babe on the board?

Wasn't it "I kind of want a cigarette"?

I think I see what the representative from Kingdom of Heaven is trying to do, but I don't think the UN should be legislating on the subject.

If you are driving in the opposite direction to a large traffic accident, I'm sure you'll have noticed there is a tendency for other drivers in your flow of traffic to slow down, have a look, and thus be distracted from the road. Accidents can happen in this scenario, and I imagine it can happen in a similar scenario when drivers pay attention to something other than the road.

I know my chauffeur has slowed down a few times to "admire" a woman walking by, and I'm sure he's not paying attention to the road at that time. Other things can distract, such as advertising showing an attractive woman in little clothing.

So yes, I can see how billboards which draws attention to themselves could be dangerous.

But I think the UN should not be concerning itself with such matters. It's a pretty minor problem, and is not really worthy of the UN's time to debate. I hope that member states take up appropriate action through their governments if they feel such measures are warranted, and I thank the representative for Kingdom of Heaven for bringing this to member attention.

Just a guess, but I'd say "never".

That's kinda what it does, ya know? Every Resolution is the United Nations telling you how to run your country, not just the ones you dislike.


***

National Sovereignty arguments aside, there's nothing illegal about this concept, provided it's submitted under 'Moral Decency'. Of course, since there really isn't a Proposal written here, it's hard to tell...

MGH... I could not agree with you less if wanted too. This proposal is a blantant attempt to control the morality of my country, nothing more. THe moral laws, or lack there of, are a NATIONAL matter, not one for international bodies to discuss.

This is what I mean when I asked the question.

I have no problem with international proposals, i.e. about space, politics, etc. Where I have issues.... Where is the international superhighway that runs between the planet Earth and the planet Northwind? I haven't seen the offramp for my planet/region. Therefore, this is...AT BEST... a regional matter, not one for the international/universal body of the UN to DEAL with. Hence, my issue.

I agree, there is not much of a proposal here to begin with. THe only thing this proposal attempts to do is spout moralistic drivel that matters only to the delegate proposing it.

Wow, poor guy. People, i know we want to role-play our countries, but this heckling of the Kingdom of Heaven is going a bit extreame. I commend The Kingdom of Heaven for taking the time to write the resolution and submitting it to these awful critiques. Don't be discouraged by this...its just one proposal. Keep writing new ones, and you'll eventually write one that is made into a resolution! :D

Please Delegates. Support this proposal for the interests of public safety and for the sake of men rights. Men should have a choice over whether to engage in lustful activity. To force sexual images onto the public is a violition of a mans right to choose to be free from lust.



Roadside Billboard Reform

Ban on Sexual Images on Roadside Billboards

Whilst the UN must respect freedom to advertise and freedom of expression, it has been brought to our attention that having images of a sexual nature (such as women in underwear) on giant billboards at the side of roads have led to many serious road traffic accidents. Male drivers in particular have been distracted by the images and ended up crashing their cars and dying.

Not only is this a safety issue, but it is also a human rights one. Men are constantly bombarded with sexual images whether or not they want see them. This is a violation of men’s human rights as many men might be struggling with sexual addiction or they might be a Catholic priest. (Therefore these images affect their ability to do their job) A man should have the right to choose when or how to engage with lust. He must not have lustful images forced upon him against his will. The same goes for women.

We propose that all billboards or posters in view of road users shall be free of sexual imagery. But this does not effect the right of companies to use sexual imagery in other forms of advertising; such as in magazines and the internet.

Free from lust? How can you be "free" from something that is internal to the person? S'like saying free from "happiness"; or free from "joy"; or free from "anger".

I have two problems with the proposal to free men from lust and remove sexual images from billboards. First of all it is an extremely sexist proposal as it refers to men as the only sect of humyns to have sexual desires. Womyn have sexual desires as well. I will not endorse nor support a resolution that is this obviously sexist. Additionally it refers to sexual images being primarily of womyn. What about picture of men with six packs? Those are sexual too!! This resolution is so sexist that it absoultely cannot be passed by any person endorsing personal freedoms. End the sexual stereotyping and free both genders from the oppressive dichotomies. If you have no clue what I'm talking about I'll be glad to explain. Just contact me. My second problem with such a resolution is that it goes beyond the powers of the United Nations. I feel that WAY too many proposals are being written and passed that go entirely beyond the powers the UN were endowed with in its creation. The UN is a body of nations, not a ruler of nations. IT CANNOT DICTATE A NATIONS POLICIES! It can CONDEMN nations with sexual images, but it cannot ban them. The only jurisdiction it has is over the treatment of other humyn beings and their rights. WHY CAN PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!? If you would like to maintain control over any aspect of your nation please do not endorse or vote for any proposal that goes beyond the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

The UN is a body of nations, not a ruler of nations. IT CANNOT DICTATE A NATIONS POLICIES!
Do you know how long it's been since I've had to do this?
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/readthefaq.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/21463/page=faq)
And to make it easy for you to do so, all you have to do is click on the card.

This proposal is a blantant attempt to control the morality of my country, nothing more. THe moral laws, or lack there of, are a NATIONAL matter, not one for international bodies to discuss.The existance of a "Moral Decency" category would tend to indicate that you're wrong.

Wow, poor guy. People, i know we want to role-play our countries, but this heckling of the Kingdom of Heaven is going a bit extreame. I commend The Kingdom of Heaven for taking the time to write the resolution and submitting it to these awful critiques. Don't be discouraged by this...its just one proposal. Keep writing new ones, and you'll eventually write one that is made into a resolution! :D

I totally agree - I think some nations are too quick to jump on the bandwagon and start critising. It's something I bring up repeatedly in this kind of topic, and it's something few nations seem to understand.

I think it is important to try and understand the ideas behind the proposal, and try and appreciate the intentions, if not the actual results.

I would urge Kingdom of heaven to ignore the negativity expressed by some of the other members, and Hirota wishes to express it's disappointment that some other nations seem to treat the UN forums as their own personal playground, where they get the chance to bully the new kid.

Logic would dictate that morally outrageous billboards should be placed everywhere. Drivers would be so offended that they would have no choice but to focus solely on the task of driving. Facetiousness aside, Quadlia cannot support this resolution simply because of the subjectivity nature of the topic. Sexuality is not only a function of biology but of society. While residents of one country may have been socialized to find a certain image sexually provocative, the same image may arouse other feelings (disgust, for example) in a different country. This even holds in differing regions of the same country. In some parts of Quadlia, it is not unusual for citizens to walk around in public with only their underwear on. This is acceptable, and due to the frequent occurrence the sight fo a person in his/her undergarments does little to arouse sexual desires. In other parts of Quadlia, citizens still hold to ancient codes of dress, requiring that women must have all parts of their bodies (excepting hands, neck, and head) covered when in public. Thus, a quick glimpse of forearm or ankle sends the men of that area into heart palpitations.


Quadlia

this resolution is just silly. why is it that people seem determined to imprint their system of values upon every nation of the UN. Surely ethical systems are all relative (within reason).

why is it that people seem determined to imprint their system of values upon every nation of the UN.
Probably because of this line in the FAQ.
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision,