NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the newest revision of Jey's proposal, Artistic Freedom. This proposal will be submitted in the next few days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

NOTING:

Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING:

That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were neither covered in Resolution #26 nor any other N.S.U.N. resolution.

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) The rights of all artists to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their artistic abilities (example: painting murals on buildings), and also given that these practices are in compliance with N.S.U.N. resolutions, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

2) The rights of all authors and writers to write, print, publish, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their writing ability, and also given that these practices are in compliance with N.S.U.N. resolutions, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

3) The rights of all musicians to sing, play, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their musical ability, and also given that these practices are in compliance with N.S.U.N. resolutions, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

DEFINES:

1)An “artist” as one, such as a painter, sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value, especially, but not limited to the fine arts. (Note: Though artistic practices include painting, sculpting, and drawing, artistic practices are not limited only to these activities.)

2) A “writer” or an “author” as one who writes books, stories, articles, etc, especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or a profession.

3) A “musician” as one who sings, plays a musical instrument, etc, especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or a profession.

Would this proposal grant artists the right to sing racist lyrics/ paint racist slogans, or do other resolutions cover this?
As for the painting of murals. If it were in a relatively public place and the government decided that the painting would ruin the look of the area, could they refuse the permission?
Finally, if a journalist wrote an article which was false and intentionally so, would this resolution allow him to publish it as fact?

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes.

Would this proposal grant artists the right to sing racist lyrics/ paint racist slogans, or do other resolutions cover this?
As for the painting of murals. If it were in a relatively public place and the government decided that the painting would ruin the look of the area, could they refuse the permission?
Finally, if a journalist wrote an article which was false and intentionally so, would this resolution allow him to publish it as fact?

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes.

Yes, just as in the U.S. and all countries that allow free speech, artists retain the right to sing racists lyrics.

About murals. If the owner of the building is allowing the artist to paint a mural on his building, he may do so.

About journalists. "Freedom of the Press" coveres this issue.

1) The rights of all artists to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. whatever they wish,
I wonder if this could be construed in a court of law to mean that an artist has a right to violate a contract, since it's their right to produce "whetever they wish", apparently irrelgardless of what they expectation of their product is.

While we agree with the intent of this proposal, we have some serious reservations.

Are we correct in our understanding that the proposal would prevent a nation from prosecuting a creator of child pornography if that person claimed artistic intent?

The same concern would apply to incitement to riot and treasonous communication of classified military information to an enemy in time of war.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Techno-Corporation of CR OScilloscopes shares the concerns of the nations of Ausserland and Powerhungry Chipmunks. We would also like to register our concern, that this resolution could result in racist murals to be painted, or artistic designs being made solely to offend and/or stir up disorder.

For these reasons, we cannot support the resolution in its present form.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes.

I wonder if this could be construed in a court of law to mean that an artist has a right to violate a contract, since it's their right to produce "whetever they wish", apparently irrelgardless of what they expectation of their product is.

Erm - no. Because it is the state that can not impinge on this right, not the contract the artist works to.

The Techno-Corporation of CR OScilloscopes shares the concerns of the nations of Ausserland and Powerhungry Chipmunks. We would also like to register our concern, that this resolution could result in racist murals to be painted, or artistic designs being made solely to offend and/or stir up disorder.

For these reasons, we cannot support the resolution in its present form.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes.

And the question remains that if you are willing to ban racist art, what else are you willing to ban that you disapprove of? People who speak out against the government? People of the wrong religion? Of the wrong gender? Sexuality?

Offense can only be taken, not given.

While we agree with the intent of this proposal, we have some serious reservations.

Are we correct in our understanding that the proposal would prevent a nation from prosecuting a creator of child pornography if that person claimed artistic intent?


No, because to do that there would have had to be a crime committed ("Outlaw Pedophillia" pretty much dictates that fact), and while you might not be able to stop the art, you can arrest them for the crime, and argue that anything produced from a crime can be impounded as evidence....


The same concern would apply to incitement to riot and treasonous communication of classified military information to an enemy in time of war.


Again - no where does it permit the artist to break the laws that exist. It just says the government can't make up new laws to stop art and so forth.

While we agree with the intent of this proposal, we have some serious reservations.

Are we correct in our understanding that the proposal would prevent a nation from prosecuting a creator of child pornography if that person claimed artistic intent?

The same concern would apply to incitement to riot and treasonous communication of classified military information to an enemy in time of war.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

NO. Please read my proposal. The phrase "given that these practices are in compliance with past N.S.U.N. resolutions" is prevailant in all 3 declarations. So, child pornography is NOT allowed. However, having FREE SPEACH is being able to sing anti-patriotic lyrics about your country. Restricting this right would not be right.

And the question remains that if you are willing to ban racist art, what else are you willing to ban that you disapprove of? People who speak out against the government? People of the wrong religion? Of the wrong gender? Sexuality?

Offense can only be taken, not given.

We believe, that this resolution could allow people to paint murals, publish books etc. purely, to intimidate or upset another type of person be it a different race, gender, whatever. Whilst people should be allowed free speech, there must be a limit to it, and we believe that this resolution goes beyond that limit.
Admittedly, more liberal countries may disagree with limiting free speech, we as a nation believe it to be essential.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes

We believe, that this resolution could allow people to paint murals, publish books etc. purely, to intimidate or upset another type of person be it a different race, gender, whatever. Whilst people should be allowed free speech, there must be a limit to it, and we believe that this resolution goes beyond that limit.
Admittedly, more liberal countries may disagree with limiting free speech, we as a nation believe it to be essential.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes

You don't hold with the view that a) offence can only be taken, not given, b) if people want to get out there and offend other people, they will do it anyway and c) sometimes the best way to deal with a problem is out in the open? If you ban what people are saying, it draws attention to their cause and makes even more people aware of it. But if you just ignore them, then generally they get bored and go away, or they cross the line that makes what they are doing a crime, as opposed to expressing their opinion, at which point you can do something without looking like a fascist dictator.

(Example of the last one - we had a little problem with a racist element at one point, and a few people complained about posters being stuck up around Serenity. So we let the people who put the posters up talk at a meeting, and they were more or less booed of the stage at once. Very few posters went up after that, cause they realised a) no one cared about their view and b) they had no support)

The Techno-Corporation of CR OScilloscopes shares the concerns of the nations of Ausserland and Powerhungry Chipmunks. We would also like to register our concern, that this resolution could result in racist murals to be painted, or artistic designs being made solely to offend and/or stir up disorder.

For these reasons, we cannot support the resolution in its present form.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes.

Only those that advocate violence against a specific group can be prohibited, anything else should be permitted. Violence is an exception because of the fact that in can be an inspiration to murder or other heinous crimes, whilst all other 'affronts', if they are perceived as such, can only offend or, at worst, slander.

Racist murals (like those on the walls of Londonderry promoting sectarianism), have a right to exist as examples of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Banning them wouldn't stop them, merely drive them underground and give ammunition to the artists who paint them and their cause.

Furthermore, there is no right not to be offended. We can be offended by many things, but because offence is a subjective matter, trying to categorise it would be impossible. Legitimate criticism could be stifled on these grounds and enquiry be ignored.

Compadria supports this resolution and hopes to see it pass.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live artistically-free Compadria!

You all raise fair points, and I am pleased to say that I will be reconsidering my stance, and will research further before adopting a position on the matter. Thank you for your fair points.
One further example though. Say someone owned a house by a school, and chose to paint a mural of say, intercourse or another potentially 'vulgar' subject, in full view of the playground. Would the mural be allowed under this resolution, or would the peoples be able to ban it? Thank you again.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes

PS. I appreciate the high unlikeliness of the example ever occurring.

You all raise fair points, and I am pleased to say that I will be reconsidering my stance, and will research further before adopting a position on the matter. Thank you for your fair points.
One further example though. Say someone owned a house by a school, and chose to paint a mural of say, intercourse or another potentially 'vulgar' subject, in full view of the playground. Would the mural be allowed under this resolution, or would the peoples be able to ban it? Thank you again.

Azar Callopa,
The Ambassador of the CR Oscilloscopes

I am not sure of the legality, but I would argue that the protection of children act could be used to remove it.

No, because to do that there would have had to be a crime committed ("Outlaw Pedophillia" pretty much dictates that fact), and while you might not be able to stop the art, you can arrest them for the crime, and argue that anything produced from a crime can be impounded as evidence.....

There is much child pornography that could not properly be prosecuted under the "Outlaw Pedophilia" resolution. However, we believe that all child pornography could be deemed illegal as "exploitation" under the "Protection of Children Act." That eliminates our concern in that area.

Again - no where does it permit the artist to break the laws that exist. It just says the government can't make up new laws to stop art and so forth.

We would respectfully point out that that simply is not what the proposal says. It says nothing about making up new laws. It states that the rights of artists "shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N." The only exemption it makes is for acts which violate NSUN resolutions. Prosecution of an artist for violating an existing national, state/province or local law would certainly be "interference" as prohibited by the proposal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

NOTING:

Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING:

That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were neither covered in Resolution #26 nor any other N.S.U.N. resolution.
Illegal due to the House of cards rule. If resolution 26 were repealed then all Humans no longer have a garunteed right to "express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference" thus rendering your proposal mute.
Rewite with out any reference to 26 and I would be happy to endorse this pursuant to reading the final draft and having no issues with the rewrite.

Illegal due to the House of cards rule. If resolution 26 were repealed then all Humans no longer have a garunteed right to "express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference" thus rendering your proposal mute.
Rewite with out any reference to 26 and I would be happy to endorse this pursuant to reading the final draft and having no issues with the rewrite.

This does not at all violate the house of cards rule. First, the house of cards rule is about proposals that use numerous amounts of past resolutions in their argument. Dozens of recently passed resolutions have stated at least one past resolution in their argument, that doesnt make it illegal. Also, all this is saying is that Resolution #26 DOESNT state anything about artists. Therefore this proposal can live on its own. If my proposal said "BECAUSE resolution #26 states this, the UN hereby..." it may be a violation, but it doesnt state this.

I can't speak for the other game mods, but I can't remember ever removing a resolution just for "House of Cards". The only time it really comes into play is when somebody uses an entire shopping list of prior resolutions as a foundation. More often, I'll remove proposals with references to single prior resolutions only if they are clearly trying to amend the prior work.

Be picky. Give good feedback. Just don't grasp at straws to find illegalities, because the mods don't.

This does not at all violate the house of cards rule. First, the house of cards rule is about proposals that use numerous amounts of past resolutions in their argument. Dozens of recently passed resolutions have stated at least one past resolution in their argument, that doesnt make it illegal. Also, all this is saying is that Resolution #26 DOESNT state anything about artists. Therefore this proposal can live on its own. If my proposal said "BECAUSE resolution #26 states this, the UN hereby..." it may be a violation, but it doesnt state this.

With all respect to the distinguished member from Venerable libertarians, we agree with the honorable representative of Jey that the proposal does indeed stand on its own. We have lingering reservations about the proposal, but we don't believe it violates the rules.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-large

Illegal due to the House of cards rule. If resolution 26 were repealed then all Humans no longer have a garunteed right to "express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference" thus rendering your proposal mute.
Rewite with out any reference to 26 and I would be happy to endorse this pursuant to reading the final draft and having no issues with the rewrite.

No. I have to disagree. Repealing resolution 26 doesn't remove the idea that people still have that right - it is just quoting, not relying on it.

It's pretty good - but, provision should be made to ensure that such media created deliberately or primarily to incite racial, religous (etc etc) hatred is restricted. I'm not talking about media which expresses an opinion ("Hirosami Kildarno is a bad man") but media which incites action against that opinion ("Hirosami Kildarno is a bad man who needs to be killed"). Primarily to stop radicals preaching violence, but also to stop the press affecting the persepective of potential jurors in trials (the right to a fair trial is protected under UN resolutions).

Secondly, provision should be made to ensure that such media is not neccessarily available to children, but left down to member states to decide upon.

And yeah, resolution 26 is part of the preamble, not the proposal itself - so it's not a big deal.

It's pretty good - but, provision should be made to ensure that such media created deliberately or primarily to incite racial, religous (etc etc) hatred is restricted. I'm not talking about media which expresses an opinion ("Hirosami Kildarno is a bad man") but media which incites action against that opinion ("Hirosami Kildarno is a bad man who needs to be killed"). Primarily to stop radicals preaching violence, but also to stop the press affecting the persepective of potential jurors in trials (the right to a fair trial is protected under UN resolutions).

Secondly, provision should be made to ensure that such media is not neccessarily available to children, but left down to member states to decide upon.

And yeah, resolution 26 is part of the preamble, not the proposal itself - so it's not a big deal.

But wouldn't that allow the government to stop materials that say "Queen Lily is a dangerous lunatic and should be forced out of office"?

And - on the idea of a fair trial - UN law doesn't preclude trying to sway the jurours and doesn't preclude trial by media. You would think it does, but apparently not :}

But wouldn't that allow the government to stop materials that say "Queen Lily is a dangerous lunatic and should be forced out of office"? No, becuase it's not neccessarily a hate crime. I'm all for free speech, but not when it could physically harm others.

Besides, everyone knows Queen Lily is a dangerous lunatic and should be forced out of office, it's one of those things that doesn't need to be said, it's patently obvious :D

And - on the idea of a fair trial - UN law doesn't preclude trying to sway the jurours and doesn't preclude trial by media. You would think it does, but apparently not :}Well, it should do - shame the existing resolution does not recognise this, but it could easily be incorporated into this proposal.

No, becuase it's not neccessarily a hate crime. I'm all for free speech, but not when it could physically harm others.


But wouldn't that depend on how "forced out of office" is interpretted? (If they mean to force me out by democractic means, all well and good. But if they mean to force me out by blowing up the palace, that would be inciting violance)


Besides, everyone knows Queen Lily is a dangerous lunatic and should be forced out of office, it's one of those things that doesn't need to be said, it's patently obvious :D


(smirk)


Well, it should do - shame the existing resolution does not recognise this, but it could easily be incorporated into this proposal.

You know you are right. If only someone (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402716) had suggested that before :}

Erm - no. Because it is the state that can not impinge on this right, not the contract the artist works to.
But the state is, most likely, the entity that would enforce the contract.

I mean, I'd hate to see it be up to publisher's or such to enforce the terms of a contract. In which case, they may just take out contracts on certain artists' lives...

:eek: The Publisher Mob

But the state is, most likely, the entity that would enforce the contract.

I mean, I'd hate to see it be up to publisher's or such to enforce the terms of a contract. In which case, they may just take out contracts on certain artists' lives...

:eek: The Publisher Mob

But, one could argue, if you sign a legal contract that you will do something, the state is not censoring you, but requiring you to live up to your obligations.

But, one could argue, if you sign a legal contract that you will do something, the state is not censoring you, but requiring you to live up to your obligations.
What one agrees to is one thing. If the artist fails to deliver on that agreement, who is going to enforce it if the state cannot get involved in what the artist creates?

What one agrees to is one thing. If the artist fails to deliver on that agreement, who is going to enforce it if the state cannot get involved in what the artist creates?

So - you let them produce it, but sue them for not producing what they were supposed to. So - arguably - you are not impinging on their right to create - they can create what they want - you are punishing them for not doing what they agreed to do :}

I wonder if this could be construed in a court of law to mean that an artist has a right to violate a contract, since it's their right to produce "whetever they wish", apparently irrelgardless of what they expectation of their product is.

Since the executive clause is pertaining to interference by member "governments"... I would say no. Since a suit brought by the client upon the artist, over contract violation stipulations would be handled by the Common Law courts systems of most states [some states call these district courts, truthfully, it's any court which is set to here civil disputes between individuals - this is opposed to Criminal courts, which actually hear trials between people and the state, over violations of codified laws].... The artist issued agreement with the offended party to paint something in exchange for some form of trade in goods and/or services... Thus, they are not being tried for "paiting what they wanted" by the state... They are being brought to non-penal suit for theft of goods in agreement with the offended party...

The state is not "imposing" the contract (contracts are imposed automatically through the initial agreement).... In the end, the court is hearing a case of breech of contract stipulations, having, itself, no bearing on the artists right to "paint what he wants to"... In the end, he is being tried for theft, in that he agreed towards a "want" of painting something for someone (in such a case); took the goods or services in trade for said agreement, but then did not deliver what he agreed upon. So he's being charged, not with painting what he wanted, but with theft (he did not deliver what he said he would, in trade for what he received)... The "enforcement" of the contract comes through suit by the offended party; the state court(s), in civil suit, are there only to arbitrate the dispute, not to directly enforce anything (contracts enforce themselves).... The artist may have a "want" to pay something, and he may claim such "want": but the court has in their hands (again, in this case) a valid and signed document indicating, on record, a "want" that contradicts any claim the artist can make for painting something other than what was agreed upon.

Secondly, provision should be made to ensure that such media is not neccessarily available to children, but left down to member states to decide upon.
I believe this provision is called parenting. :p


Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

What one agrees to is one thing. If the artist fails to deliver on that agreement, who is going to enforce it if the state cannot get involved in what the artist creates?

It can. This issue is addressed in past resolutions. Honestly, at least 95% of everyone's problem with this resolution falls in the lack of reading my proposal. These issues are addressed in passed resolutions. Artistic freedom is restricted to having to comply with past UN decisions. Read it. Its there 3x in my proposal.

It can. This issue is addressed in past resolutions. Honestly, at least 95% of everyone's problem with this resolution falls in the lack of reading my proposal. These issues are addressed in passed resolutions. Artistic freedom is restricted to having to comply with past UN decisions. Read it. Its there 3x in my proposal.
First, you're not suggesting that I haven't read your proposal, but that I haven't read whatever past resolution is mandating that "artists are accountable to their contracts (as enforced by states)", that your proposal submits itself to.

Second, I'm unaware of such a resolution (either I have never seen it, or I don't remember it at the moment). Perhaps, if the kind representative from Jey would point out to me what this resolution is and refresh my memory to it, this objection could be put to rest.

Since the executive clause is pertaining to interference by member "governments"... I would say no. Since a suit brought by the client upon the artist, over contract violation stipulations would be handled by the Common Law courts systems of most states [some states call these district courts, truthfully, it's any court which is set to here civil disputes between individuals - this is opposed to Criminal courts, which actually hear trials between people and the state, over violations of codified laws].... The artist issued agreement with the offended party to paint something in exchange for some form of trade in goods and/or services... Thus, they are not being tried for "paiting what they wanted" by the state... They are being brought to non-penal suit for theft of goods in agreement with the offended party...
But how is it the artist's lawyer would not be successful is defending that the artist was just "painting whatever he liked"?

I understand it isn't the intent of the legislation to do this. And I also understand that the artist is being sued over whether or not he violated his contract. I'm just curious if this first clause (and later clauses perhaps) is protecting artist's right to violate contracts. I mean, since what one is contracted to do and what one "wants" to do (even at the point of signing the contract) are often different things (as I understand it), and there would then be two laws contradicting here: the national law which states that contracted goods must be returned, and the international law which states that artists may do "whatever they want". And, of course, as has been pointed out again and again to me, international law would take precedence (in the NSUN, anyway). Hold on, I’ll get more to this argument in the next quoted section.

I’m also interested in one thing you said earlier, about the state not actually being involved: how so? I'm curious whether you see the contract as binding in and of itself (without enforcement of it) or how exactly you understand the situation. I think it will greatly help me understand why you think this does not allow artists to violate contracts.

The state is not "imposing" the contract (contracts are imposed automatically through the initial agreement).... In the end, the court is hearing a case of breech of contract stipulations, having, itself, no bearing on the artists right to "paint what he wants to"... In the end, he is being tried for theft, in that he agreed towards a "want" of painting something for someone (in such a case); took the goods or services in trade for said agreement, but then did not deliver what he agreed upon. So he's being charged, not with painting what he wanted, but with theft (he did not deliver what he said he would, in trade for what he received)... The "enforcement" of the contract comes through suit by the offended party; the state court(s), in civil suit, are there only to arbitrate the dispute, not to directly enforce anything (contracts enforce themselves).... The artist may have a "want" to pay something, and he may claim such "want": but the court has in their hands (again, in this case) a valid and signed document indicating, on record, a "want" that contradicts any claim the artist can make for painting something other than what was agreed upon.
But, I'm not certain contractual obligation and "want" are so synonymous. Is an agreement to do something is not a measurement, necessarily of someone's "want"? I suppose for that we would have to derive the meaning of "want" and how it interacts with intention and such. I'm curious how you define "want" in relation to "contractual intention" (or other word for signing a contract to do something).

But how is it the artist's lawyer would not be successful is defending that the artist was just "painting whatever he liked"?

I understand it isn't the intent of the legislation to do this. And I also understand that the artist is being sued over whether or not he violated his contract. I'm just curious if this first clause (and later clauses perhaps) is protecting artist's right to violate contracts. I mean, since what one is contracted to do and what one "wants" to do (even at the point of signing the contract) are often different things (as I understand it), and there would then be two laws contradicting here: the national law which states that contracted goods must be returned, and the international law which states that artists may do "whatever they want". And, of course, as has been pointed out again and again to me, international law would take precedence (in the NSUN, anyway). Hold on, I’ll get more to this argument in the next quoted section.

I’m also interested in one thing you said earlier, about the state not actually being involved: how so? I'm curious whether you see the contract as binding in and of itself (without enforcement of it) or how exactly you understand the situation. I think it will greatly help me understand why you think this does not allow artists to violate contracts.


But, I'm not certain contractual obligation and "want" are so synonymous. Is an agreement to do something is not a measurement, necessarily of someone's "want"? I suppose for that we would have to derive the meaning of "want" and how it interacts with intention and such. I'm curious how you define "want" in relation to "contractual intention" (or other word for signing a contract to do something).

First: "Want" and contractual obligation are synonymous, in that, the artist expressed desire, and made choice to enter into that contract. His choice is "binding" to his later actions. This is especially true when there is a trade of goods and services involved. In the case here, we're dealing with a situation where such art was already rendered, and the ability to render this art, on the others property, is defined by particular contracts.

Let's say you're an artist. I draw up contract, to pay you "X" ammount of currency, to paint a mural on the side of my resturant themed in some mexican motif.... Now, instead of the by contract loan to paint the mexican motif, you do an artic one....

1. Since you did not hold stipulation to your end, you did not have permission to paint on the building (contract is void)
2. Any money paid upfront is theft, as the product was not delivered...

The Artist, cannot contend against the theft, through exercizing non-verbal alterations (want); the courts can only see "wants" from what is specified directly in writting between parties (the contract)... If he does, then the contract is void, the Artist losses his position of having his temporal ownership of the materal, and the artist is guilty of tresspass and vandalism (he may only paint what he "wants" on his own property... without the contract, it cannot be his property, and therefore he is not protected).

The court, in suit, is not acting as an involved party (different that criminal courts), in that they are not holding anyone liable to any breech of governmental regulation.... The court is arbitrational (non-involved) party, rendering verdict between two citizens (subjects, what-ever you state calls them), over agreements BETWEEN those citizens. [It is also expected that contracts bear penalty stipulations].... Verdict is rendered, as court order, based upon what the artist AGREED to, in penalty.... The court is not penalizing the artist... The Artist has penalized himself, the suit just grants power to make those penalities, themselves, a force of law, as agreed by the contractor and contractee.... Once this is issued, the contract goes into a defunct status.... And the artist would be unable to appeal, higher, since, legally, he would have no contract of ownership of the building the mural is on..... And he no longer meets the criteria of the resolution's enumeration.

"But, I'm not certain contractual obligation and "want" are so synonymous. Is an agreement to do something is not a measurement, necessarily of someone's "want"? I suppose for that we would have to derive the meaning of "want" and how it interacts with intention and such. I'm curious how you define "want" in relation to "contractual intention" (or other word for signing a contract to do something)." Powerhungry Chipmunks

It's true that 'want' and contractual obligation are not really synonomous in terms of exact definintion, nor in, strictly speaking, artistic desire or interest.

Yet if we think about, the two can be considered as such. Let's assume the artist takes commissions from persona x, who likes Pre-Raphaelite art work, whilst the painter is more into, let's say, Kadzinksy. However, because he is working on commission, the artist is required to adopt the prefferred painting style of his patron. If the artist links himself to his patron in such a way, then his 'wants' are the same as those of the patron, because in working for and identifying himself with the patron, he is implicity endorsing his taste in artwork. So, through his own choice, he has undertaken to represent the artistic preferences of the patron as his own, in order to fulfill the contract. Thus, his want becomes synonomous with that of the patron/contractor, who then can use the artists work as an example of the qualities of his (the patrons) preferred genre. Thus, through choice alone, the artist has automatically so identified himself with his contractor, that the artistic preferences, for commercial and practicle purposes, are one and the same.

I hope this offers a possibility as to explaining such a viewpoint as the one you are questioning.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We disagree with this entirely because it does not take into account the audience exposed (i.e., parents being able to control what is shown to their children), the context, or timing of a presentation or performance.

This gives someone the right to come to my Aunt Martha's home and play their heavy metal thrash music, or at least set up on the street before her house, and there could not be local ordinance to prevent such disruption.

As it is written it gives the creator the right to "inflict" their work upon unwilling audiences without the audience to say "stop!"

And it prevents the government, who is usually called upon by the citizenry, to act on behalf of those suffering from bad drummers past midnight.

We cannot support this whatsoever unless written into it is some definition of rights for a government to moderate abusive, obscene and slanderous works.

Furthermore, you need to define a right for media and venue owners to have the right to display or not display what they choose to carry, display or present via their media or venues.

Stop putting all the rights in the hands of one party. There is the creator, the audience, the media, and the government that needs to listen to the complaints of the other three parties. Each has to have rights and limitations of rights for this to make sense.

The Deligate from the Pure Socialist Holy Empire of Shazbotdom Abstains from this for now.

We disagree with this entirely because it does not take into account the audience exposed (i.e., children being able to control what is shown to their children), the context, or timing of a presentation or performance.

This gives someone the right to come to my Aunt Martha's home and play their heavy metal thrash music, or at least set up on the street before her house

If the heavy metal "trash" music players happen to own the street their playing on, they may play thier "trash" music. Yes.

We cannot support this whatsoever unless written into it is some definition of rights for a government to moderate abusive, obscene and slanderous works.

Is anyone who makes this argument listening to themselves? Yes, abusive an obscene language, lyrics, art, is foolish, wrong, and worthless. But putting any type of restriction on it completely renders free speech useless. Is anyone here FOR free speach?

We disagree with this entirely because it does not take into account the audience exposed (i.e., children being able to control what is shown to their children), the context, or timing of a presentation or performance.


That's what parents are for.


This gives someone the right to come to my Aunt Martha's home and play their heavy metal thrash music, or at least set up on the street before her house, and there could not be local ordinance to prevent such disruption.


Censoring someone is not the same as making them follow the law. If you are not permitted to play in the street, this proposal would not give you an excuse to do it.


As it is written it gives the creator the right to "inflict" their work upon unwilling audiences without the audience to say "stop!"


I take it you are assuming the audience all have no legs and are incapable of walking away. That TVs have no off switch. That people are incapable of putting books down, not looking at the art on the wall........



And it prevents the government, who is usually called upon by the citizenry, to act on behalf of those suffering from bad drummers past midnight.


Noise pollution. Not censorship.


We cannot support this whatsoever unless written into it is some definition of rights for a government to moderate abusive, obscene and slanderous works.


And thus defeat the entire point of the resolution. Plus slanderous ones are crimes, and as such probably not protected.


Furthermore, you need to define a right for media and venue owners to have the right to display or not display what they choose to carry, display or present via their media or venues.


Why should they get to censor it just cause they have the ability? Again - it defeats the point of the resolution.


Stop putting all the rights in the hands of one party. There is the creator, the audience, the media, and the government that needs to listen to the complaints of the other three parties. Each has to have rights and limitations of rights for this to make sense.

So anyone who hates black people can just say "yeah - don't put black people in tv shows" and the rest of the nation has to accept it?

Is anyone who makes this argument listening to themselves? Yes, abusive an obscene language, lyrics, art, is foolish, wrong, and worthless. But putting any type of restriction on it completely renders free speech useless. Is anyone here FOR free speach?

Do you want to know (what I perceive to be) the truth?

No one wants their national sovereignty imposed on. They want the right to censor, to discriminate, to be bigoted and judgemental. Your proposal would destroy their ability to do that, as would a few others that have been proposed recently.

The same people who are saying naked children can be artistic and not pornographic, are now arguing that having no restrictions would enable people to do what they want with no limits.

I am pretty sure you are not going to win Jey - no one wants to be told they can't be discriminatory.

I am pretty sure you are not going to win Jey - no one wants to be told they can't be discriminatory.

If that is the truth, I feel sorry for them and their citizens. Here in Jey, we reserve the right to say whatever we want, no matter how discriminatory, judgemental, racist, etc. it is. Then, the large majority of our citizens who disagree with these ridiculously obscene words may use their own right of free speech to tear them apart....verbally.

If you all truly respected free, unfettered speech, then you would never disagree with anyone, especially those whose opinion you did not agree with.

You'd say "Yes!" "You tell, 'em!" "You are allowed to believe what you like!"

However, we find that those who demand truly unfettered unlimited free speech often find they disagree with others and then, eventually tell them they are wrong. In the most extreme cases, they tell them to shut up.

So apparently others cannot express themselves freely without being remonstrated by those railing for freedom of expression?

A curious phenomenon and conundrum.

For my own part, someone else's right to express themselves ends when it becomes abusive, hostile, destructive, and to the listener or observer expressly unwanted.

There are needs to allow people to express themselves in private company as they please. Public places have other limitations. And in government halls, and workplaces there are other restrictions.

If I was a government official and came in and saw my subordinates doodling, I would not want to hear them say "I'm expressing myself, man! Stop repressing me!"

Your proposal lacks limits and context. It's that simple and plain. All laws need boundaries. No single freedom can be utterly unfettered and without limits, or it becomes an oppression of its own upon the freedoms and rights of others.

If you all truly respected free, unfettered speech, then you would never disagree with anyone, especially those whose opinion you did not agree with.

You'd say "Yes!" "You tell, 'em!" "You are allowed to believe what you like!"

I seriously cannot believe you posted something so foolish. Free Speech does not equal mandatory agreement on everything. I'm free to disagree with you.

Your proposal lacks limits and context. It's that simple and plain. All laws need boundaries. No single freedom can be utterly unfettered and without limits, or it becomes an oppression of its own upon the freedoms and rights of others.

Why then, was religious, scientific, sexual, etc. etc. etc. freedoms passed without these "boundaries." And no, too much freedom does not equal oppression.

If you all truly respected free, unfettered speech, then you would never disagree with anyone, especially those whose opinion you did not agree with.


It means I would listen to them, but not agree with them. Much like I am listening to you now, but find your arguement to be somewhat flawed.


However, we find that those who demand truly unfettered unlimited free speech often find they disagree with others and then, eventually tell them they are wrong. In the most extreme cases, they tell them to shut up.


I have told plenty of people they are wrong, but only once did I tell someone to shut up (and that's cause they said "if you can prove this, I will shut up", and did, so they did)



So apparently others cannot express themselves freely without being remonstrated by those railing for freedom of expression?


If someone is wrong, I will tell them I think they are wrong, or I know they are wrong. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear their opinion. Cause - you never know - I could be wrong (unlikely as that sounds!)


For my own part, someone else's right to express themselves ends when it becomes abusive, hostile, destructive, and to the listener or observer expressly unwanted.


Abusive : pity them.
Hostile : Walk away.
Destructive : If they break the law, stop them. If not, walk away.
Unwanted : Walk away.

Take the current repeal at vote - I got sick and tired of debating it, so I just stopped going to the thread. People are still expressing themselves about it, but I am not listening cause I chose not to.

How is that not freedom of expression?


There are needs to allow people to express themselves in private company as they please. Public places have other limitations. And in government halls, and workplaces there are other restrictions.


Public places - there shouldn't be. Same with government halls (depending on what is going on there). If you can't express yourself freely to those who supposedly represent you, then when can you express yourself?

And anyway - this is about art and literature and so forth, not general yelling in the street (unless you are doing street theatre I guess)


If I was a government official and came in and saw my subordinates doodling, I would not want to hear them say "I'm expressing myself, man! Stop repressing me!"


If they are supposed to be working, for which they have a contract and get paid, then you are not repressing them. If they are on their lunch break......


Your proposal lacks limits and context. It's that simple and plain. All laws need boundaries. No single freedom can be utterly unfettered and without limits, or it becomes an oppression of its own upon the freedoms and rights of others.

This proposal had limits and people didn't like it. Now it doesn't have them, the same people don't appear to like it. I don't think that that is the main problem with it, in some people's eyes.

I believe this provision is called parenting. :p


Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New WorldThat's great. In theory :)Why then, was religious, scientific, sexual, etc. etc. etc. freedoms passed without these "boundaries." And no, too much freedom does not equal oppression.That's probably because the UN has much higher expectations when it comes to resolution writing than it has in the past.However, I agree with Pallatium - it appears some people will object to anything they can possibly object to, there is no pleasing some people

If you all truly respected free, unfettered speech, then you would never disagree with anyone, especially those whose opinion you did not agree with.

Respecting "Free Speech" =/= Accepting anything anyone says, unconditionally.


So apparently others cannot express themselves freely without being remonstrated by those railing for freedom of expression?

Merely having the right to speak your mind, does not gurantee you the right to be agreed with.


A curious phenomenon and conundrum.


Not at all [excepting that this conundrum is an invention of your own mind].


For my own part, someone else's right to express themselves ends when it becomes abusive, hostile, destructive, and to the listener or observer expressly unwanted.

While I agree with "Hostile" [within limits], and definitely anything that can directly lead to some physically "destructive" event..... "Abusive" and "unwanted" however do not deserve to get ANY attention, simply from the fact thaqt those two are relative exercizes, which would be impossible to actually enforce.


Your proposal lacks limits and context. It's that simple and plain. All laws need boundaries. No single freedom can be utterly unfettered and without limits, or it becomes an oppression of its own upon the freedoms and rights of others.

No NSUN resolution is boundless. All must be specific [and by default are]... That saying, what is included within the resolution exists in law, what is not explicitly written in the resolution, is not law.

There is far too much IMPLIED INCLUSIVE INTERPRETATION going on within these halls.... Such IMPLIED content, DOES NOT EXIST... There does not have to be provision for WHAT you can do in resolutions; be default all states have all power, the UN only takes away specific powers.

There is nothing in this resolution that prevents me from fining or arresting someone for screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There is nothing in this resolution that prevents me from arresting people for playing drums on the street infront of another's house.

There is nothing in this resolution that prevents me from enforcing noise ordinences.

First: "Want" and contractual obligation are synonymous, in that, the artist expressed desire, and made choice to enter into that contract. His choice is "binding" to his later actions.
This is what I have trouble understanding. In my mind, intention to do something, and desire, or "want" are different things. Perhaps you can help me understand why you pronounce them synonymous.

The Artist, cannot contend against the theft, through exercizing non-verbal alterations (want); the courts can only see "wants" from what is specified directly in writting between parties (the contract)... If he does, then the contract is void, the Artist losses his position of having his temporal ownership of the materal, and the artist is guilty of tresspass and vandalism (he may only paint what he "wants" on his own property... without the contract, it cannot be his property, and therefore he is not protected).That may work in a situation of an artist being contracted to paint a mural on a wall (not his own), but what about a composer commissioned to create a symphony? The materials he or she uses very often be his or her own (either bought with his or her own money before the commission or afterward).


The court, in suit, is not acting as an involved party (different that criminal courts), in that they are not holding anyone liable to any breech of governmental regulation.... The court is arbitrational (non-involved) party, rendering verdict between two citizens (subjects, what-ever you state calls them), over agreements BETWEEN those citizens.
Well, rereading the proposal (and I suppose this makes the whole of the debate moot) it states that the rights of artists "shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N". I do not consider my national government to be "any government of the N.S.U.N.", but rather an independent entity which has subscribed itself to the resolutions the governments of the N.S.U.N. enforce upon it. If this interpretation is valid (which I see as a fair likelihood) then the proposal would have no effect on how my government interacts with artists either way.

I mean, if it were to say "any national government of the N.S.U.N.", or "any government in the N.S.U.N." then I could see my national government being included. But since "of the N.S.U.N." appears to mean (sas I see it) "belonging to" or "originating from" it is most logical to consider this as referring to government divisions directly controlled by the "N.S.U.N.", such as the compliance ministry, and the various committees, as these are actually "belonging to", or "originating from" the N.S.U.N.; as oppossed to my national government, which is independent (except in cases of resolution enforcement) and which did not "originate from the N.S.U.N."

I'll repost this, since the proposal author has failed to respond to it, thus far.


It can. This issue is addressed in past resolutions. Honestly, at least 95% of everyone's problem with this resolution falls in the lack of reading my proposal. These issues are addressed in passed resolutions. Artistic freedom is restricted to having to comply with past UN decisions. Read it. Its there 3x in my proposal.First, you're not suggesting that I haven't read your proposal, but that I haven't read whatever past resolution is mandating that "artists are accountable to their contracts (as enforced by states)", that your proposal submits itself to.

Second, I'm unaware of such a resolution (either I have never seen it, or I don't remember it at the moment). Perhaps, if the kind representative from Jey would point out to me what this resolution is and refresh my memory to it, this objection could be put to rest.

I mean, if it were to say "any national government of the N.S.U.N.", or "any government in the N.S.U.N.".......

Why are you exploiting every single possible way out of my proposal? Every single resolution ever passed by the U.N. has these cracks, but I have yet to see a debate that analyzed a proposal so thoroughly. Take religious freedom, what if my religion was to kill all women? OH! Loophole!

Bottom Line: you obviously know what I mean, stop being so critical of everything. When you see something that may/could/might be a "loophole" but is this worthless of our recognition like your statement was, do us all a favor and take it as it is. You dont have to criticize everything that has a possibility of being criticized. (Given that the word "criticize" actually means the English definition of "To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate. ", the word "possibility" as the English definition "a future prospect or potential", etc. etc. etc. Please note that all of the words used in this post are in fact that of modern English texts from modern English meanings of the typical United States citizen. If you have any trouble in interpreting this post for its obvious loopholes and cracks, please let us know)

Why are you exploiting every single possible way out of my proposal? Every single resolution ever passed by the U.N. has these cracks, but I have yet to see a debate that analyzed a proposal so thoroughly. Take religious freedom, what if my religion was to kill all women? OH! Loophole!

Bottom Line: you obviously know what I mean, stop being so critical of everything. When you see something that may/could/might be a "loophole" but is this worthless of our recognition like your statement was, do us all a favor and take it as it is. You dont have to criticize everything that has a possibility of being criticized. (Given that the word "criticize" actually means the English definition of "To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate. ", the word "possibility" as the English definition "a future prospect or potential", etc. etc. etc. Please note that all of the words used in this post are in fact that of modern English texts from modern English meanings of the typical United States citizen. If you have any trouble in interpreting this post for its obvious loopholes and cracks, please let us know)

NSUN legislation is to be taken literally.

To put it bluntly... It really does not matter what the a proposal author's intentions were during writing. It only matters what the text actually says. This is why the simple term "government" or as may be attached to qualify the term "member-state" is used heavily in many resolutions. It removes ambiguity from the texts of international law.... Resolutions have to be specific [towards what they will do, and upon whom they are acted]... If not, loopholes abound... just as PC pointed out...

While, for the most part I agree with your proposal, I also agree with PC on this point, "NSUN government" is generally understood to mean the actual governing house of the United Nations.... whereas my own state government is classically reffered to as "member-state government"

Agreed: NSUN legislation is letter of the law, not spirit of the law. Sorry, knowing what you mean doesn't matter.