NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my first time writing to United Nations. I'm not too sure how this thing works, but I thought I would like the community to have a look at my first piece before I actually 'try my luck'. :D

Comments, add-ons and Grammar Nazis are of course welcomed, as long as the core point of this draft resolution is preserved. ;)

RECONGIZING that Blogging is the new form of mass media that can be propagated by any Internet user,

with INTENTION to enpower each and every citizen of the world and to allow the diversity of views and perspective in addition to the traditional mass media,

to UPHOLD the ideals of freedom of opinon

to NUTURE thought, debate and reasoning within the international community online.

It is hereby REQUESTED for nations to ensure that citizens are able to speak their mind online through blogging and be immune from any consquences by any other individual, organisation, company and government, as set out in the following provisions :

I) Bloggers may not be legally prosecute under the jurisidication of any country.

II) That bloggers are protected from any possible form of attack or/and persecution in real life by any other party, as a result of their actions online.

III) Bloggers be granted the right of anonymity on the Internet if they choose to do so.

IV) Nobody has the right to censor, or/and prevent access of any person to any blogs.


This will probably be under 'furtherment of democracy', with mild effect unless someone else can come up with something more suitable.

1.) eMpower
2.) not be legally prosecuteD
3.) jurisidication = jurisdiction
4.) or/and is usually and/or
5.) blogs = bloggs? Not completely sure on that one, probably a preferance.
6.) NUTURE = NURTURE
7.) citizens are able to speak their minds
8.) consquences = consequences

Thanks for letting me be a grammar nazi :rolleyes: ;)

Blogs is single g, that one is correct:

I) Bloggers may not be legally prosecute under the jurisidication of any country.

No: confidential information, information that they have signed contracts that they will never reveal, etc, should be considered worthy of prosecution as any other item is prosecuted. In fact, I would say that they should be held to the same standards that are held in one's day-to-day activities.

II) That bloggers are protected from any possible form of attack or/and persecution in real life by any other party, as a result of their actions online.

Somewhat: they should be protected from abuse no matter what, this I will agree with. However, slander has the level of legality that slander for any other reason has. If the nation doesn't care about slander, then it should be legal.

III) Bloggers be granted the right of anonymity on the Internet if they choose to do so.

This is far from a right. They should be granted the right to be publicly anonymous, but that doesn't mean their identity can't be found. This can't be physically removed.....unless you want Hackers to be able to get off scot free.

IV) Nobody has the right to censor, or/and prevent access of any person to any blogs.

Yes and no. No government has this right, nor companies have this right in treatment of consumers (eg: Rogers Comm can't block all their customers from accessing a blog). Companies and households should have the right to block access to any blog for any reason on their INTERNAL network - just as they block porn, games, hate content, etc.

Also, companies that host blogs should have the right to request blogs leave their server. In many ways, I think this should follow the guidelines of, say, renting where you have a 30 day warning period to find a new host for your blog. There will be companies that don't care about whether or not they are hosting content they don't agree with.

See Article 2, SNUN Universal Bill of Rights: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27

I think this resolution is unnecessary, despite any grammatical or spelling problems. :)

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

I am completely in agreement with Forgottenlands on this matter.

i don't really know what to think about your proposition

but anyway i think you will be interested to read about this interesting project, it's not very easy to use yet, but keep an eye on his further development. The idea behind (either if one like it or not) is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

....follow the white rabbit

RECONGIZING that Blogging is the new form of mass media that can be propagated by any Internet user,

Agreed.

RECONGIZING that Blogging is the new form of mass media that can be propagated by any Internet user,


with INTENTION to enpower(1) each and every citizen of the world and to allow the diversity of views and perspective(2) in addition to the traditional mass media,

1. empower
2. perspectives


to UPHOLD the ideals(3) of freedom of opinon(4)


3. "ideal" would be better.
4. Consider revising, "opinion" is a consequence of the freedom of speech, expression or conscience, though there is no actual codification of "freedom of opinion".


to NUTURE thought, debate and reasoning within the international community online.

Agreed.


It is hereby REQUESTED for nations to ensure that citizens are able to speak their mind online through blogging and be immune from any consquences by any other individual, organisation, company and government, as set out in the following provisions :

This part is agreed.


I) Bloggers may not be legally prosecute(5) under the jurisidication of any country.(6)

5. prosecuted
6. Consider partial revising, the purpose is to protect "opinions"; however not what would be in itself a criminal act (such as posting confidential or security sensitive information): I will not grant total immunity to any single individual. As long as the expression is matter of opinion, I have no problem, but I will not grant them the immunity to simply post whatever they like on a blog, and be immune from it in total (if they posted information persuant to someones financial personal data, that is a criminal act of theft, and not a matter of opinional freedom).


II) That bloggers are protected from any possible form of attack or/and persecution in real life by any other party, as a result of their actions online.(7)


7. Same applicability as argument #6


III) Bloggers be granted the right of anonymity on the Internet if they choose to do so(8).

8. Somewhat vague, anonymity on the internet is not a right (or even a cursoral posibility); since there is identifiable information transmitted in the action of being online in the first place. So while I am in partial agreement, such agreement is not in reality functionally feasible.


IV) Nobody has the right to censor, or/and prevent access of any person to any blogs(9).

9. Not feasible, private firms have the right to restrict data transmitted accross their network. While this could be applicably defined to governmental organizations; it cannot be applied to general access restrictions of internal governmental office networks, private corporate networks, or private school networks; whereby the organization has a right (and responsibility) to restrict access for their own internal interest. While we agree on a provision against overall, and national placement of blocks upon such information: this one levies too broadly upon corporate responsibility whether public or private. Nor is fair upon school systems whereby information attained over school networks (which is for in-class educational use only) whereby information is restricted to AS NEEDED INFORMATION alone (that is everything is blocked except that which is specifically granted by the students teacher in that particular class...)