NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

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

ACKNOWLEDGING that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech or the media; thus

CONSIDERING that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;

UNDERSTANDING that artistic freedom should be protected and promoted throughout the world;

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) A “work of art” as an object (such as a painting or sculpture) or intellectual construct (such as a novel or musical piece) created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value,

b) An “artist” as a person who plays a major creative role on either the construction of an original work of art, or the interpretation of an existing work of art;

2. DECLARES the rights of artists to create and interpret works of art, and of any person to distribute and preserve them, without interference from other individuals, any government, or the N.S.U.N., provided they:

a) RESPECT national and international law on property rights, including copyrights,

b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

c) RESPECT any other relevant legislation that does not directly restrict their freedom of expression;

3. ENCOURAGES N.S.U.N. members to endorse and promote all artistic genres, by such means as they see fit, as long as these genres do not infringe on the restrictions described in clause 2.

Co-Authored By: Fonzoland
---------------------------------

Proposal Listed Here:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_...match=artistic

You shouldn't quote Res #26, that is House of Cards, I think. Otherwise, let me think about it a bit more.

You shouldn't quote Res #26, that is House of Cards, I think. Otherwise, let me think about it a bit more.

This was debated alot last time i submitted this proposal. My quote on res #26 is saying that it doesn't have artists mentioned. Therefore, my proposal can stand on its own, so its not a House of Cards.

I'd suggest allowing national governments to restrict things a bit during wartime, to prevent spies or traitors passing important information to enemy nations in the guise of art (or non-fiction articles)... For that matter, there may be some peacetime matters that are also considered unsuitable for publication.

And then there's the argument, which arose during the discussion about the most recent of the previous proposals along these lines, that some national governments might want to maintain certain standards of "decency"... I think that you're likely to have trouble with this one...

OK. I generally agree with the intentions, and I don't see serious loopholes with it.

About style, it would probably be clearer, and read more crisply, if you just definined broadly what a "work of art" is, then define an "artist" as anyone involved in the creative process leading to a work of art, and have your operative clauses just referring to those two concepts. I don't see writers, musicians, etc. as being outside a reasonable definition of "artist." If you want, I could draft a suggested rewrite in these lines.

As a side note, your definitions do not seem to include composers.

We would be very supportive of the introduction of an Artistic Rights resolution into the U.N. lawbook, given that so many resolutions have focused on economics and sciences, without considerations for the fine arts. Equally, we agree with the contention that Resolution no 26 does not cover this area and therefore does not guarantee freedoms in this respect.

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.

We are however, somewhat concerned by this set of ideas, given they appear to exclude part-time artists and musicians from the people covered by this resolution.

To use an RL reference, Chandler worked as a clerk whilst writing his novels and John Mortimer wrote some of his earliest works whilst still is the CPS.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

We are however, somewhat concerned by this set of ideas, given they appear to exclude part-time artists and musicians from the people covered by this resolution.

If you notice the "especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or a profession" line, the line applys to all artists who perform as an occupation, but not just them.

Nevertheless, others may have the same concern as you, therefore, the term "or hobby" has been included.

If you want, I could draft a suggested rewrite in these lines.

We would appreciate your suggestions and welcome your ideas in a rewrite.

As a side note, your definitions do not seem to include composers.

Well the addition of "etc." in all three definitions generally implies all things associated with artists, musicians, authors, and writers, but, I'll include it in my definition, seeing that some may have the same concern as you.

New Additions to proposal:

-made "CONSIDERING" and "UNDERSTANDING" clauses more inclusive with the addition of "performers of other artistic genres".

-added composers to "HEREBY DECLARES" clause

-added "DEFINES" #4 -- composers

-added "or hobby" to all "DEFINES" clauses

-added "URGES" clause to help endorse and promote these and other types of art

-------------------------------

Please note: including "performers of other artistic genres" does not mean that a murderer can be considered an "artist." Please see the "RESTRICTS" clause for this.

I'd suggest allowing national governments to restrict things a bit during wartime, to prevent spies or traitors passing important information to enemy nations in the guise of art (or non-fiction articles)... For that matter, there may be some peacetime matters that are also considered unsuitable for publication.

And then there's the argument, which arose during the discussion about the most recent of the previous proposals along these lines, that some national governments might want to maintain certain standards of "decency"... I think that you're likely to have trouble with this one...

You would have trouble with this one only because there is the issue of censorship. Some governments (including mine) believe they have a right to censor any material which is racist, for instance, from reaching public ears. In fact, in Canada, if you print, broadcast, or publically declare, something which "might result in hate" you are risking court!

Wouldn't this proposal give people the right to author articles slandering their neighbors/business competitors/ex-girlfriends? And also to write false statements to be submitted to courts, news stations, or government officials?

You're legalising libel and graffiti. We couldn't support this in its present form.

You're legalising libel and graffiti. We couldn't support this in its present form.
Libel, yes, but not graffiti:
1) The rights of all types of 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 (such as painting murals on buildings), and also given that these practices are in compliance with N.S.U.N. resolutions, shall not be interfered with by any government in the N.S.U.N.
I do have the same issues you have about libel though.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Yes, you're right: I was interpreting 'properties' as talents, not actual properties. Just libel, then.

OK, this is my suggested approach. Don't hang me on details, I am sure the definitions and restrictions in 1/2 need some work.

------------------------------

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

ACKNOWLEDGING that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech and/or the media; thus

CONSIDERING that the rights of artists are not covered by any UN resolution;

UNDERSTANDING that artistic expression should be protected and promoted throughout the world;

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
1.1 “work of art” as an object or intellectual construct created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value,
1.2 “artist” as a person who plays a major creative role on either the construction of an original work of art, or the interpretation of an existing work of art for the enjoyment of others;

2. DECLARES the right of artists to create and/or interpret works of art without interference from other individuals, the government, or the UN, insofar as they
2.1 RESPECT national and international law on property rights, including copyright,
2.2 ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
2.3 RESPECT any other relevant legislation that does not directly restrict their freedom of expression;

ENCOURAGES UN members to endorse and promote all artistic genres, by such means as they see fit, as long as these genres do not infringe on the restrictions described in clause 2.

If tightened up so that it says all that, as well as specifically saying that this law does not give the artist the right to go against UN law regarding slander and the like, then it sounds perfectly fine by us.
And is in fact something that we would endorse as a more general amendment in that sense that something gauranteeing the rights of citizens to free art as well as free speech.
We endorse this proposal in general, with reservations about the specifics.

If tightened up so that it says all that, as well as specifically saying that this law does not give the artist the right to go against UN law regarding slander and the like, then it sounds perfectly fine by us.
And is in fact something that we would endorse as a more general amendment in that sense that something gauranteeing the rights of citizens to free art as well as free speech.
We endorse this proposal in general, with reservations about the specifics.

There is no UN law on slander, that I know. There is only national law.

Then we ask.
Why is there not one?
We do not have the experience required to propose one ourselves.
We do feel that this is a glaring over sight on the part of this organisation
If we understand humanity correctly, then we find that such a piece of legislation must be created and enforced so as to enable a more amicable future.
Slander is the polar opposite of copyright, yet only one degree removed. As copyright is about people using other knowledge.
Whereas slander is about people talking about others existences.
The laws on sopyright should be standardised and by the same token, so should the laws on slander.

How would this effect restrictions on hate speech?

The-Republic']Wouldn't this proposal give people the right to author articles slandering their neighbors/business competitors/ex-girlfriends?

Is this ability not held true in our own soceity? To steal this ability tears up free speech, even if its wrong.

The-Republic']And also to write false statements to be submitted to courts, news stations, or government officials?

Courts: covered, fair trial; news station: freedom of the press; government officials: How might you suggest I address this minor detail, without rendering my proposal useless?

How would this effect restrictions on hate speech?

It is the haters' right speaking the hate word to freely say these hate words becasue of free speech. ;)

About people bringing up libels: If you want this to be illegalized, then we'd have to arrest every person saying "George Bush sucks" on every forum. It makes no sense, let the people have free speech.

OK, this is my suggested approach. Don't hang me on details, I am sure the definitions and restrictions in 1/2 need some work.

We were happily surprised with the work you did. You provided a clear, concise explanation of what we were trying to acheive. We added some clauses and fixed afew things and have a new draft. Please, everyone, post your concerns/suggestions:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Artistic Freedom

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

ACKNOWLEDGING: that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech and/or the media; thus

CONSIDERING: that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;

UNDERSTANDING: that artistic freedom should be protected and promoted throughout the world;

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) A “work of art” as an object (such as a painting or a sculpture) or intellectual construct (such as a novel or a musical piece) created with the primary purpose of attaining some type of aesthetic, personal, sentimental, or another type of value,

b) An “artist” as a person who plays a major creative role on either the construction of an original work of art, or the interpretation of an existing work of art.

2. DECLARES the right of artists to create and/or interpret works of art without interference from other individuals, the government, or the N.S.U.N., given they:

a) RESPECT national and international law on property rights, including copyrights,

b) ENSURE that no other person is physically harmed, or likely to be physically harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

c) RESPECT other’s physical properties, and only use their own properties when creating works or art, or properties loaned to them for this purpose,

c) RESPECT any other relevant legislation that does not directly restrict their freedom of expression;

ENCOURAGES N.S.U.N. members to endorse and promote all artistic genres, by such means as they see fit, as long as these genres do not infringe on the restrictions described in clause 2.

Signature Spam: Forum signatures give you space to include a few carefully selected links or quotes. Sigs are attached to every post, and must therefore conform to clutter-reducing rules. Maximum size should never exceed eight lines, including blank lines and quote lines. (A short quote takes up 5 lines - "quote", attribution line, two lines for the box, and one line for the quote). Large font sizes should be avoided and may be trimmed without warning. Posting forbidden links is not allowed. Jolt policy prohibits images in signatures as well, so don't try IMG tags..

About people bringing up libels: If you want this to be illegalized, then we'd have to arrest every person saying "George Bush sucks" on every forum. It makes no sense, let the people have free speech.
The basis of libel is falsehood. If someone can prove the truth of their statement, then they cannot be prosecuted. However, deliberately misleading someone is not something we should be encouraging. I do not see how your proposal covers perjury, at present, how it would deal with companies who give out misleading information on their accounts so as to encourage investment, or someone committing libel in a bid to influence a political campaign. If you are suggesting that all three of these should become legal in Gruenberg, then I cannot support your proposal.

Is this ability not held true in our own soceity? To steal this ability tears up free speech, even if its wrong.
I'm going to assume that you mean American society, not that of Jey or The-Republic. FYI, in America there are laws against defamation, slander, and libel. Do those inhibit free speech? Yes, but I ask you... should somebody be allowed, in the spirit of free speech, to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If your answer is yes, than I feel you take free speech too far. If your answer is no, then I hope you understand my point. Certain freedoms need to be limited when they begin to infringe on the rights of other citizens.

Courts: covered, fair trial; news station: freedom of the press; government officials: How might you suggest I address this minor detail, without rendering my proposal useless?
Courts: Do you mean the UN Resolution "Fair Trial," or perhaps "Definition of 'Fair Trial?'" Because neither of those addresses any sort of honesty policy. So no, it's not covered.

News Station: Freedom of the press? I fear that you are taking these American ideals to the extreme without thinking practically. In America, there are limits, when necessary, to certain freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. Would you agree that certain limits are necessary? Or do you think that the right to bear arms means that any gun control legislation ever enacted is inherently unconstitutional?

Government Officials: So you believe that your proposal will be useless if a clause is inserted saying that artistic freedom will be continued to be limited by applicable national law regarding governmental, legal, and military matters?

I apologize for the OOC-ness and the RL references, but I suspect that RL is exactly where many of your statements are coming from.

If you are suggesting that all three of these should become legal in Gruenberg, then I cannot support your proposal.

Universal Bill of Rights already covers perjury (by giving citizens the "free speech" clause). And I dont see endorsing this at all in my proposal. I'm giving artists the freedom to create works of art as they please, nothing more.

About people bringing up libels: If you want this to be illegalized, then we'd have to arrest every person saying "George Bush sucks" on every forum. It makes no sense, let the people have free speech.
That is not slander, that is the ineloquent statement of a political opinion.

(2)b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
We do not feel this conveys the full possibility of the repercussions.
We therefore propose
(2)b) ENSURE that no other person is to come to mental or physical harm, or likely to be mentally or physically harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

We do not feel this conveys the full possibility of the repercussions.
We therefore propose
(2)b) ENSURE that no other person is to come to mental or physical harm, or likely to be mentally or physically harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

We considered including something like this. Just tell me how someone can acquire "mental harm" other then having their feelings hurt by a work of art? If we include that, then anyone not liking a book can go sue the guy who wrote it.

The-Republic']Yes, but I ask you... should somebody be allowed, in the spirit of free speech, to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If your answer is yes, than I feel you take free speech too far.

I agree, its wrong. Go throw the guy out of the theatre, but please dont arrest him. I don't like a Big Brother crime system where people must be on high alert of saying something that can be deemed "offensive". People who go to jail are primarily people who physically harm others or can potentially do so--not people who hurt others with words.

Sticks and stones....

Universal Bill of Rights already covers perjury (by giving citizens the "free speech" clause).
Do you mean the UNBoR legalized perjury, or illegalized it? Please provide the clause you're talking about; I can't find an applicable one anywhere in the resolution.

I agree, its wrong. Go throw the guy out of the theatre, but please dont arrest him. I don't like a Big Brother crime system where people must be on high alert of saying something that can be deemed "offensive". People who go to jail are primarily people who physically harm others or can potentially do so--not people who hurt others with words.

Sticks and stones....
And what if his yelling about fire caused a stampede out of the theater, during which people were injured? Would he be accountable then?

What about a political figure who acquires followers, then incites them (through speech only) to commit acts of violence? Should he be accountable?

The-Republic']Do you mean the UNBoR legalized perjury, or illegalized it? Please provide the clause you're talking about; I can't find an applicable one anywhere in the resolution.

"All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech...without any interference" --the exact quote i used in my proposal.

Make the same jump your making with my proposal--by saying this your legalizing perjury.

The-Republic']Do you mean the UNBoR legalized perjury, or illegalized it? Please provide the clause you're talking about; I can't find an applicable one anywhere in the resolution.

He's right: it legalises 'the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference' in Article 2.

Fuck.

The-Republic']And what if his yelling about fire caused a stampede out of the theater, during which people were injured? Would he be accountable then?

What about a political figure who acquires followers, then incites them (through speech only) to commit acts of violence? Should he be accountable?

Yes, and yes. Because physical harm happened as a result of him. If neither happened--the stampede and the followers never killed anybody, but the words were spoken, then they deserve no penalty.

He's right: it legalises 'the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference' in Article 2.

Fuck.
I read that; however, I don't think that "expressing oneself" includes providing false information. I include in "expressing yourself" statements of personal belief, knowledge, or inquiry. False information is not included.

Yes, and yes. Because physical harm happened as a result of him. If neither happened--the stampede and the followers never killed anybody, but the words were spoken, then they deserve no penalty.
So if I shoot a gun at someone, but I miss, then I get off scot-free?

We do not feel this conveys the full possibility of the repercussions.
We therefore propose
(2)b) ENSURE that no other person is to come to mental or physical harm, or likely to be mentally or physically harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

I feel that your suggested change, rather than conveying more, actually restricts the scope of the subclause. As it stood, it had a much better chance of encompassing the previous objections on libel. (OOC: I am not a lawyer, but if I am not mistaken, slander is strictly about the spoken word. If I am correct, only libel is an issue here.)

Jay: Don't you think your clause 2.c is just a repetition of my 2.a?

The-Republic']So if I shoot a gun at someone, but I miss, then I get off scot-free?

No. Attempted murder? Sure, there may be a guy saying "kill all jews" and all...but theres a BIG difference between saying it and doing it. You can make the connection.

Jay: Don't you think your clause 2.c is just a repetition of my 2.a?

:rolleyes: whoops.

No. Attempted murder? Sure, there may be a guy saying "kill all jews" and all...but theres a BIG difference between saying it and doing it. You can make the connection.
I see. So then... Hitler was innocent?

LastRLReferenceIPromise!

The-Republic']I read that; however, I don't think that "expressing oneself" includes providing false information. I include in "expressing yourself" statements of personal belief, knowledge, or inquiry. False information is not included.

Then make the same conclusion with my proposal.

The 2 proposals are arguing nearly the same point--free speech for people in expression and through the media, and freedom for artists

The-Republic']I see. So then... Hitler was innocent?

LastRLReferenceIPromise!

We already went over this. His words made others kill


"kill all jews" + army of Nazi's = bad

"kill all jews" + 0 =/= a guy that should go to prison, just one really messed up person

Another point: by writing " some type of aesthetic, personal, sentimental, or another type of value," you are making the definition completely empty. A car, a cup of tea, or an AK-47 all are built with the objective of creating value - economic value.

I strongly dislike crucial definitions ending in etc. Such can destroy an otherwise good proposal.

We considered including something like this. Just tell me how someone can acquire "mental harm" other then having their feelings hurt by a work of art? If we include that, then anyone not liking a book can go sue the guy who wrote it.

That is a good point, proposal retracted. We also agree with Fonzoland.
We feel, essentially that as long as noones wallet or person comes to harm, then, the statement can be considered perfectly legal. note that we would define suicide as harm if it was almost solely caused by the statement made.
When we say solely, if a citizen was to commit suicide due to the statement, the defendant/statement maker, could not say that the victims hamster dieing two days before hand was the reason for the suicide.

So if I shoot a gun at someone, but I miss, then I get off scot-free?
We feel that statement was verging on hyperbole, we also feel, that the aggressor would still get arrested on charges of attempted murder, unless they where defending there land.....that is of course another matter.

I could make the same conclusion with your proposal, if you used the same language. However, instead of using the term "expression," which leaves it open to interpretation, you explicitly state:
The rights of all authors and writers to write, print, publish, etc. whatever they wishNow, "expression" may be slightly ambiguous, but "write... whatever they wish" is not.

Another point: by writing " some type of aesthetic, personal, sentimental, or another type of value," you are making the definition completely empty. A car, a cup of tea, or an AK-47 all are built with the objective of creating value - economic value.

I strongly dislike crucial definitions ending in etc. Such can destroy an otherwise good proposal.

i put this in there because some "artists" are only in it for the monetary value. should we call them artists?

The-Republic']
Now, "expression" may be slightly ambiguous, but "write... whatever they wish" is not.

you should read the new proposal:

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

ACKNOWLEDGING: that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech and/or the media; thus

CONSIDERING: that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;

UNDERSTANDING: that artistic freedom should be protected and promoted throughout the world;

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) A “work of art” as an object (such as a painting or a sculpture) or intellectual construct (such as a novel or a musical piece) created with the primary purpose of attaining some type of aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value,

b) An “artist” as a person who plays a major creative role on either the construction of an original work of art, or the interpretation of an existing work of art.

2. DECLARES the right of artists to create and/or interpret works of art without interference from other individuals, the government, or the N.S.U.N., given they:

a) RESPECT national and international law on property rights, including copyrights,

b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

c) RESPECT any other relevant legislation that does not directly restrict their freedom of expression;

ENCOURAGES N.S.U.N. members to endorse and promote all artistic genres, by such means as they see fit, as long as these genres do not infringe on the restrictions described in clause 2.
--------------

i put this in there because some "artists" are only in it for the monetary value. should we call them artists?

The artist is only payed because the work of art (s)he created has aesthetic value, another person recognises such value, and is willing to pay for the object. There is no contradiction there. If you want to find gray areas, you need to go to the design/fashion world, where it is dubious if the primary goal is aesthetic or functional. But those do not need that many protections anyway.

I must say, excellent work on this new draft, Jey. I can only think of a couple issues I have with this, which might vanish immediately based on your response to the following question:

What exactly is "personal value" as defined by clause 1a?

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

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

*snip*

Makes the whole proposal a big waste of time, now, doesn't it?

The-Republic']I must say, excellent work on this new draft, Jey.

Poor little ignored me... :(

Skipping past any discussions on the definition of artist, or originality for that matter.
We do endorse this new draft.
*cough*
<.<
>.>

Makes the whole proposal a big waste of time, now, doesn't it?

Read the second line of the last draft.

Jay: You might want to edit the first post, to reflect the latest version.

Skipping past any discussions on the definition of artist, or originality for that matter.
We do endorse this new draught.

The people of Cluichstan always support new draughts. However, we cannot support this new draft.

The people of Cluichstan always support new draughts. However, we cannot support this new draft.

Do you have an argument to go with the pun?

Poor little ignored me... :(
Fonzo! I'm terribly sorry, I just looked back and noticed how much of a contribution you had made. Well done to you too sir!

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Read the second line of the last draft.

Jay: You might want to edit the first post, to reflect the latest version.

Done, with a nice, well-deserved clause at the end ;)

Do you have an argument to go with the pun?

Don't need one.

Don't need one.
With all due respect, why? What's the point of even posting your dissent if you're not going to give reason? What you're doing is comparable to quoting a three-page post and then simply stating, "I agree."

Don't need one.

OK. Next customer?

Do you have an argument to go with the pun?

Terrrrrribly sorry, but as I noted already, this is already covered by a previous resolution. To support this proposal would be to compound nonsense with more nonsense.

Terrrrrribly sorry, but as I noted already, this is already covered by a previous resolution. To support this proposal would be to compound nonsense with more nonsense.
I think it's debatable whether paintings or novels are covered by the terms "speech" or "media." I see nothing wrong with a resolution that attempts to rectify ambiguity.

Terrrrrribly sorry, but as I noted already, this is already covered by a previous resolution. To support this proposal would be to compound nonsense with more nonsense.

OK, then repeat it in slow motion so that I understand properly.

---

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

ACKNOWLEDGING: that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech and/or the media; thus

CONSIDERING: that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;

---

What is the missing link in this argument?

OK, then repeat it in slow motion so that I understand properly.

Ttttttthhhhhiiiiiisssss iiiiissssss nnnnnooooonnnnnssssseeeeeennnnnssssseeeee.

Ttttttthhhhhiiiiiisssss iiiiissssss nnnnnooooonnnnnssssseeeeeennnnnssssseeeee.
For the love of God, man, would you please actually respond, with something mature and intelligent, to the points Fonzoland is raising? Look at the text of the proposal and state your problems with it.

The-Republic']For the love of God, man, would you please actually respond, with something mature and intelligent, to the points Fonzoland is raising? Look at the text of the proposal and state your problems with it.

A. Covered by a previous resolution.

B. Overstepping UN bounds.

Happy?

A. Covered by a previous resolution.
I refer you to the text of the proposal:
----------------------------------
NOTING: Article II of Resolution #26, “The Universal Bill of Rights,” which states that “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

ACKNOWLEDGING: that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech and/or the media; thus

CONSIDERING: that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;
-----------------------------------
I think it's debatable whether paintings or novels are covered by the terms "speech" or "media." I see nothing wrong with a resolution that attempts to rectify ambiguity.

B. Overstepping UN bounds.
Please explain.

Happy?
Yes, although it has much more to do with this amazingly delicious garlic cheeseburger I'm eating than your delayed response.;)

Amestria, which has laws against hate speech, suggests a clause defining and excluding Hate speech from the resolution...

Amestria, which has laws against hate speech, suggests a clause defining and excluding Hate speech from the resolution...

This clause, or something of the sort, is as far as I think we should go:

b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

There has always been a fine line between hate speech regulations and censorship. And especially in artistic activities, what is said/written/painted cannot be interpreted literally.

The-Republic']*snip*
Please explain.
*snip*


Gladly. The people of Cluichstan are constantly dismayed by attempts by the supposedly austere body to micromanage every aspect of life within individual nations. We should be confining ourselves to issues of international import, rather than trying, as it seems we often are, to turn the UN a warm fuzzy guarantor of an endless list of individual rights within member states.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

We should be confining ourselves to issues of international import, rather than trying, as it seems we often are, to turn the UN a warm fuzzy guarantor of an endless list of individual rights within member states.

As "the world's governing body", the UN must ensure that its members are not overly oppressive of their citizens, and that means giving them all their inherent freedoms, which includes freedom of artistic expression.

this is more unneccessary micromanagement since the copyright act, the public domain act and the bill of rights cover what this draft tries to do.

the bill of rights may not mention 'artists' directly but their creations are protected by international and national copyright laws.

These and other UN resolutions also apply to the subject we're discussing.

Therefore this is about as necessary as a knife and fork is in a Kirisuban restaurant. We use chopsticks.

Ms Midori Kasigi, Deputy ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

Gladly. The people of Cluichstan are constantly dismayed by attempts by the supposedly austere body to micromanage every aspect of life within individual nations. We should be confining ourselves to issues of international import, rather than trying, as it seems we often are, to turn the UN a warm fuzzy guarantor of an endless list of individual rights within member states.

First and foremost, we would like to congratulate Cluichstan. We are aware of the massive effort involved in articulating an argument in one coherent paragraph.

Now, to the issues:

1. The proposal under discussion, in a nutshell, mandates:
"Artists have the right to create/interpret art without interference."
How someone can construe this as being micromanagement is beyond our limited imagination. To clarify, there are three possible levels at which an international organisation may operate:
a) Micromanagement: Dictates the specific details of the implementation of a measure, thereby replacing the role of the government.
b) Macromanagement: States a general goal or principle that members should follow, yet leaves implementation details to individual governments.
c) No management: Does absolutely nothing except beautiful speeches.
(OOC: Arguably, RL UN is between b and c, RL EU and NS UN are between a and b.)
To state that declaring freedom of expression is micromanagement is false and unfounded. This claim can only be interpreted as an attempt to drive the UN into the role described in c.

2. Protecting freedom of expression is an issue of human rights. The UN legislates often, as it should, on human rights. We are deeply concerned that some delegates consider human rights to be "not of international import," and can only start to imagine the disturbing reasoning behind such position. As it stands, your claim is merely false and unfounded.

3. We fail to see how someone can interpret freedom of expression through speech and the media to encompass all forms of artistic expression. No reasoning was provided, so we have little else to say, except that such statement on duplication is false and unfounded.

As a conclusion, let me just point out that we interpret your refusal to present detailed arguments as the inabillity to accept your initial mistake (specifically in point 3), and to fully consider the potential positive/negative consequences of the resolution. As such, your contribution to this discussion is unconstructive, false, and unfounded.

this is more unneccessary micromanagement since the copyright act, the public domain act and the bill of rights cover what this draft tries to do.

the bill of rights may not mention 'artists' directly but their creations are protected by international and national copyright laws.

These and other UN resolutions also apply to the subject we're discussing.

Therefore this is about as necessary as a knife and fork is in a Kirisuban restaurant. We use chopsticks.

Ms Midori Kasigi, Deputy ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

Copyright act - We are not aware of such law, a link would be appreciated.
Public domain - Property rights law, nothing to do with freedom of expression.
Bill of rights - Can someone please read the first three lines of the proposal and explain why they are unclear/wrong? I am getting tired.

To clarify, it is not the intention of this proposal to protect property rights. What we are trying to prevent is censorship and destruction of the world cultural heritage, specifically situations such as:

The Library of Alexandria
The Holy Inquisition
McCarthyism
Fahrenheit 351

property[/B] rights. What we are trying to prevent is censorship and destruction of the world cultural heritage, specifically situations such as:

The Library of Alexandria
The Holy Inquisition
McCarthyism
Fahrenheit 351


having examined the latest draft closely i can't see where this grand plan to prevent the destruction of world cultural heritage is mentioned. this is a proposal about freedom of speech, nothing more.

while some nations may well practice book burning I would say most of these would be outside the UN.

with rights come responsibilities so an 'artist' also needs to consider that a piece of 'art' that promotes hatred or breaks existing laws would be a matter of concern to a government.

in return this proposal gives the artist the right to free expression without a government or others stopping them.

so whats a concerned government to do if a right wing musician puts out a song that incites hatred against a particular group of people or a politician writes a book that incites hatred?

at the moment its in their hands how they deal with it. I don't think that point 2b covers this concern enough.

Gladly. The people of Cluichstan are constantly dismayed by attempts by the supposedly austere body to micromanage every aspect of life within individual nations. We should be confining ourselves to issues of international import, rather than trying, as it seems we often are, to turn the UN a warm fuzzy guarantor of an endless list of individual rights within member states.
So let me get this straight:

A. You believe that this proposal is redundant because according to you, its actions are covered by a previous resolution, the UN Bill of Rights.

B. You also believe that this proposal is overstepping UN bounds.

C. Therefore, logically you must believe that the UN Bill of Rights is overstepping UN bounds, since in your eyes this proposal and that resolution do the same thing.

Why, pray tell, have you not attempted a repeal of the UNBoR?

having examined the latest draft closely i can't see where this grand plan to prevent the destruction of world cultural heritage is mentioned. this is a proposal about freedom of speech, nothing more.

Point taken. There should be a clause declaring the right to create, interpret and divulge art. Then an attempt to eg burn a painting would be outlawed.

while some nations may well practice book burning I would say most of these would be outside the UN.

Well, then this should not step on anyone's toes. ;) I am sure some of the 30,000+ nations in the UN are very interested in limiting free expression.

with rights come responsibilities so an 'artist' also needs to consider that a piece of 'art' that promotes hatred or breaks existing laws would be a matter of concern to a government.

in return this proposal gives the artist the right to free expression without a government or others stopping them.

so whats a concerned government to do if a right wing musician puts out a song that incites hatred against a particular group of people or a politician writes a book that incites hatred?

at the moment its in their hands how they deal with it. I don't think that point 2b covers this concern enough.

Existing laws are protected by 2.c, hatred by 2.b, but are open to debate and improvement.

In the situation you mention, I would possibly argue in two different angles:
- Is the primary goal of that song/book an aesthetic one, or the promotion of hatred? If it can be reasonably argued that artistic intentions are secondary, it is no longer considered art, and thus not protected.
- Is inciting hate likely to harm others? I think this is an unambiguous yes.

so whats a concerned government to do if a right wing musician puts out a song that incites hatred against a particular group of people or a politician writes a book that incites hatred?

I'm sorry, we're not going to put in a clause that lets people be arrested because they disagree with a certain government's viewpoint. There are people that will disagree with you, deal with it, don't arrest them for it. I dislike Bush, and thank god he doesn't agree with you, or I could be arrested for "inciting hatred of the President"

You may not want to kill all jews, but that doesn't mean you can arrest someone who does. Now, if that person acts on this crime, by all means, throw him in the slammer.

I'm sorry, we're not going to put in a clause that lets people be arrested because they disagree with a certain government's viewpoint. There are people that will disagree with you, deal with it, don't arrest them for it. I dislike Bush, and thank god he doesn't agree with you, or I could be arrested for "inciting hatred of the President"

You may not want to kill all jews, but that doesn't mean you can arrest someone who does. Now, if that person acts on this crime, by all means, throw him in the slammer.

I disagree with my esteemed coauthor.

I do believe that governments should have the right to prevent hate speech, but only if it constitutes a direct incitement to violence. As such, I would recognise Kirisubo's right to arrest someone who painted on a wall the phrase "Kill all jews!" As this is likely to cause harm to others, if people follow the suggestion, and can be argued not to have been written with aesthetic purposes, it would not be covered by the current proposal. On the other hand, Kirisubo would not have the right to censor a book where one of the characters expresses extreme dislike for jews.

Again, we the people of James xenoland must say nay to this proposal. As we feel that this bodys time would be better served working on matters of actual international importance.

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


I think the UN proposal rules say you can't note or recall previous resolutions.


A nation can limit porn to adult-only areas right?

I disagree with my esteemed coauthor.

I do believe that governments should have the right to prevent hate speech, but only if it constitutes a direct incitement to violence. As such, I would recognise Kirisubo's right to arrest someone who painted on a wall the phrase "Kill all jews!" As this is likely to cause harm to others, if people follow the suggestion, and can be argued not to have been written with aesthetic purposes, it would not be covered by the current proposal. On the other hand, Kirisubo would not have the right to censor a book where one of the characters expresses extreme dislike for jews.
That's exactly why I asked what "personal value" meant (a question which was unfortunately never answered). One could argue that writing "Kill all Jews" would have a personal value to the author.

Another issue I still have with this is the lack of a definition of "harm" in 2b.

Again, we the people of James xenoland must say nay to this proposal. As we feel that this bodys time would be better served working on matters of actual international importance.Like what, rectifying ambiguity in previous UN Resolutions that have defined individual freedoms?

Oh wait.

I do believe that governments should have the right to prevent hate speech, but only if it constitutes a direct incitement to violence.

I could agree on this, but anything further would be considered censorship to the Jevian People.

I think the UN proposal rules say you can't note or recall previous resolutions.
I believe that the "House of Cards" section of proposal rules only applies if proposal in question cannot stand on its own, without the resolutions it is noting or recalling. I believe that this proposal would be able to stand on its own, even if the UNBoR is repealed (which I believe is highly unlikely anyway).

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

I could agree on this, but anything further would be considered censorship to the Jevian People.
You do realize that you wouldn't be forced to outlaw hate speech, correct? I don't think the Jevian People would feel any new oppression as the result of the suggested change.

Midori speaks up again

"in response to the ambassador from Fonzoland i thank them for clarifying the issue.

However the 'hate speech' laws that many nations have including Kirisubo are there to protect the people of the nation.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle it can't be called back and the poison will continue to effect the people of the nation.

I feel this proposal will give an avenue to people who want to spread the poison of their hatred"

The-Republic']That's exactly why I asked what "personal value" meant (a question which was unfortunately never answered). One could argue that writing "Kill all Jews" would have a personal value to the author.

I wouldn't know what that particular word is doing there. My personal view is that a work of art is created primarily for aesthetic reasons. Punkt. For the rest, Jay should answer.

The-Republic']Another issue I still have with this is the lack of a definition of "harm" in 2b.

Basically, this is there, written broadly like this, to allow nations to restrict artistic freedom if it is deemed harmful to others, including physical harm, libel, kids watching porn, whatever. I am still suspicious that it might create a large loophole for senator MacCarthy, but what can I do...
Specifying further would be micromanagement, and I don't like that. Unless someone has brilliant constructive alternatives for it. <--- This is a hint.

Copyright act - We are not aware of such law, a link would be appreciated.There was one, but UCPL was repealed.

I feel this proposal will give an avenue to people who want to spread the poison of their hatred"

Just pointing this out (as i did before) -- my proposal does not mention hate speech--it protects the rights of artist given they "respect" NSUN resolutions.

There is one resolution that indirectly affects hate speech--#26. Your problem is with that resolution, not mine. You dislike hate speech? Ok. Go repeal Res #26. If you do, artists must respect your new resolution.

We dont have the power to restrict hate speech in our resolution given that its already allowed in #26. Therefore, what I think should be done is leave out hate speech in this proposal. (As I'm trying to do), so, If someone decides to get rid of hate speech, all they need to do is repeal one resolution.

The-Republic']That's exactly why I asked what "personal value" meant (a question which was unfortunately never answered). One could argue that writing "Kill all Jews" would have a personal value to the author.

1) We're only giving artists the inherent rights they have set forth by free speech laws, copyrights, etc. So "kill all jews" is legal by Res #26. Sorry, but if you want that gone you'll have to repeal #26, which would make the artists in this proposal have to follow the repeal.

2) As for "personal value", that can be left up to interpretation, but, since we have these restrictions on artists that pertain to
-national laws not dealing with freedom of expression
-and all NSUN laws, even ones that do pertain to freedom of expression,

does it really matter?

OK, a re-read and new suggestions for the drafting process:

First, I don't like the colons in the preamble, they are redundant and stop the flow of reading. But that is just a style preference.

Second, I think the following clauses could be improved:

...

ACKNOWLEDGING: that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech or the media; thus

...

a) A “work of art” as an object (such as a painting or sculpture) or intellectual construct (such as a novel or musical piece) created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value, [I think personal or sentimental values are still aesthetic]

...

2. DECLARES the right of artists to create, interpret, and divulge works of art without interference from other individuals, the government, or the N.S.U.N., provided they:

*said changes made*

It sounds better. :)

Now I am worried about the "creative role" in divulgation (which makes no sense) and the restriction that only artists are allowed to divulge their work. I would want anyone wanting to distribute, say, a book or movie to have that right (when not in breach of copyright). In addition, it is important to allow people to own a painting without it getting burned down.

Suggested changes:

b) An “artist” as a person who plays a major creative role on either the construction of an original work of art, or the interpretation of an existing work of art.

2. DECLARES the rights of artists to create and interpret works of art, and of any person to divulge and preserve them, without interference from other individuals, the government, or the N.S.U.N., provided they:

Jay, wouldn't it would be amazingly super wonderful if other people made some suggestions/criticism, other than repeating tired NatSov/"none of UN busines" arguments? I mean, I am sure there are a bunch of nice people out there who either agree with it, or disagree on some minor, changeable points... ;)

A point not yet addressed under this writing: I believe any government wishing to limit publication of wartime (or peacetime) sensitive information is free to do so under copyright restrictions, and that surely applies even under the Bill of Rights. Conversely, if some information is in the public domain, any restrictions on artists who use it seems ill founded.

First and foremost, we would like to congratulate Cluichstan. We are aware of the massive effort involved in articulating an argument in one coherent paragraph.

*snip*

When that's all it takes, that should tell you that the proposal is shite.

As "the world's governing body", the UN must ensure that its members are not overly oppressive of their citizens, and that means giving them all their inherent freedoms, which includes freedom of artistic expression.

Um...no. As the "world's governing body," the UN should restrict itself to dealing with matters of international import -- i.e., those issues that affect the interaction of member nations -- not every single little pet issue of individual delegates.

The-Republic']So let me get this straight:

A. You believe that this proposal is redundant because according to you, its actions are covered by a previous resolution, the UN Bill of Rights.

B. You also believe that this proposal is overstepping UN bounds.

C. Therefore, logically you must believe that the UN Bill of Rights is overstepping UN bounds, since in your eyes this proposal and that resolution do the same thing.

Why, pray tell, have you not attempted a repeal of the UNBoR?

Your logic is flawless, and the answer to the question you pose is simple: because we recognise that, given the UN's record, such a repeal would, unfortunately, never fly.

When that's all it takes, that should tell you that the proposal is shite.

If you had actually read through the snipped part, and argued against those points, you would be one step closer to showing the proposal is "shite".

As such, I am afraid you are only portraying your own debating style as "shite." I will refrain from suggesting that it is also childish and immature, as it might be construed as flame-baiting, and we have had enough of that in this thread.

Repeating myself: Next customer?

If you had actually read through the snipped part, and argued against those points, you would be one step closer to showing the proposal is "shite".

As such, I am afraid you are only portraying your own debating style as "shite." I will refrain from suggesting that it is also childish and immature, as it might be construed as flame-baiting, and we have had enough of that in this thread.

Repeating myself: Next customer?

Might be construed? :rolleyes:

We do not feel it is worth the effort to debate these individual "points," as the entire basis for the resolution is categorically outside the mandate of the UN.

as the entire basis for the resolution is categorically outside the mandate of the UN.

Taking into account Resolutions #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #21 Fair Trial, #25 The Child Protection Act, #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, #30 Common Sense Act II, #31 Wolfish Convention on POW, #36 Freedom of Humor, #43 Legalize Euthanasia, #51 Children in War, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #62 Female Genital Mutilation, #63 Freedom of Press, #73 Habeas Corpus, #74 Law of the Sea, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #81 Definition of Marriage, #88 Fairness and Equality, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #92 Humanitarian Intervention, #94 Right to Self-Protection, #99 Discrimination Accord, #101 Right to Learn about Evolution, #111 Civilian Rights Post War, #115 Freedom of Conscience, #121 Adoption and IVF Right, #134 Rights of Neutral States, and #135 Right to Divorce

which all deal with inherent human rights,

and also taking into account that there is a whole category for proposals listed as "Human Rights",

and considering that Artistic Freedom is a human right,

this proposal is well inside the mandate of the UN,

Next!

Taking into account Resolutions #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #21 Fair Trial, #25 The Child Protection Act, #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, #30 Common Sense Act II, #31 Wolfish Convention on POW, #36 Freedom of Humor, #43 Legalize Euthanasia, #51 Children in War, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #62 Female Genital Mutilation, #63 Freedom of Press, #73 Habeas Corpus, #74 Law of the Sea, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #81 Definition of Marriage, #88 Fairness and Equality, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #92 Humanitarian Intervention, #94 Right to Self-Protection, #99 Discrimination Accord, #101 Right to Learn about Evolution, #111 Civilian Rights Post War, #115 Freedom of Conscience, #121 Adoption and IVF Right, #134 Rights of Neutral States, and #135 Right to Divorce

which all deal with inherent human rights,

and also taking into account that there is a whole category for proposals listed as "Human Rights",

and considering that Artistic Freedom is a human right,

this proposal is well inside the mandate of the UN,

Next!

And the people of Cluichstan would argue that the great majority of those resolutions should never have been passed.

Repeal "Human Rights"

A proposal to change the mandate of the UN

Category: Game Mechanics

Proposed by: Cluichstan

Description: Resolution category "Human Rights" shall be struck out from the Nationstates game, and all passed Resolutions in this category automatically repealled.

Argument: RECOGNISING that Human Rights issues are not of international import;

NOTING WITH REGRET that all Human Rights proposals are shite;

REALISING that everything I don't like qualifies as micromanagement;

BELIEVING that I am actually doing you a favour by presenting an argument, as I need none;

REPEALS the "Human Rights" category.

Very funny... :rolleyes:

Very funny... :rolleyes:
I think so too.

Anyway, would you mind telling us on what the UN should be allowed to legislate? Because I was always under the impression that Human Rights is near the top of the list.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']I think so too.

Anyway, would you mind telling us on what the UN should be allowed to legislate? Because I was always under the impression that Human Rights is near the top of the list.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Relations among nations and (I hate to say it, but...) and issues of international concern (i.e., ocean pollution and the like), as well as only the most very basic of "human rights." The tendency of this body, however, has been to construe every imaginable right (e.g., marriage, divorce, et al.) as a basic human right in an attempt to force a common culture upon the world.

Relations among nations and (I hate to say it, but...) and issues of international concern (i.e., ocean pollution and the like), as well as only the most very basic of "human rights." The tendency of this body, however, has been to construe every imaginable right (e.g., marriage, divorce, et al.) as a basic human right in an attempt to force a common culture upon the world.

Since "the most very basic" does not include free expression, what does it include?

I am saddened to see that a culture of parochialism still exists and is perpetuated by the speeches of some delegates and honourable members of this institution. I am saddened because I feel that it reflects a cynicism with regards to the purpose of the U.N.

Would the honourable delegates espousing such views really be prepared to categorically state that the resolutions such as Resolutions #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #21 Fair Trial, #25 The Child Protection Act, #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, #31 Wolfish Convention on POW, #36 Freedom of Humor, #43 Legalize Euthanasia, #51 Children in War, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #62 Female Genital Mutilation, #63 Freedom of Press, #73 Habeas Corpus, #74 Law of the Sea, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #81 Definition of Marriage, #88 Fairness and Equality, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #92 Humanitarian Intervention, , #99 Discrimination Accord, #101 Right to Learn about Evolution, #111 Civilian Rights Post War, #115 Freedom of Conscience, #121 Adoption and IVF Right, #134 Rights of Neutral States, and #135 Right to Divorce. Have not brought a better standard of living and greater rights and allowed more citizens of the worlds represented here to enjoy their natural freedoms?

We are tasked in this forum with bringing about great change, bearing fruit from the crooked tree of man, releasing the potential of all and using our legislative perogative to build a finer, cleaner, healthier, safer and freer world for our descendants. That we do this peacefully and democratically, is all the more marvellous. The perogatives of the U.N. do not need restricting, they need expanding, so none in future may fear tyrants under the auspices of this organisation, nor feel in need or suffer from want. These are their rights, their human rights and we must protect, strengthen and enable them all.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We are tasked in this forum with bringing about great change, bearing fruit from the crooked tree of man, releasing the potential of all and using our legislative perogative to build a finer, cleaner, healthier, safer and freer world for our descendants.

"Tasked" by whom? Your otters? The government of St Edmund do not recall seeing that list of objectives included in the UN's rules when we were originally considering membership...

OK, to get this thread bumped and back on topic, here is what I would suggest as a final draft:

---------------------------------
The General Assembly of the United Nations,

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

ACKNOWLEDGING that the majority of artistic genres are not transmitted by speech or the media; thus

CONSIDERING that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;

UNDERSTANDING that artistic freedom should be protected and promoted throughout the world;

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) A “work of art” as an object (such as a painting or sculpture) or intellectual construct (such as a novel or musical piece) created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value,

b) An “artist” as a person who plays a major creative role on either the construction of an original work of art, or the interpretation of an existing work of art;

2. DECLARES the rights of artists to create and interpret works of art, and of any person to distribute and preserve them, without interference from other individuals, any government, or the N.S.U.N., provided they:

a) RESPECT national and international law on property rights, including copyrights,

b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,

c) RESPECT any other relevant legislation that does not directly restrict their freedom of expression;

3. ENCOURAGES N.S.U.N. members to endorse and promote all artistic genres, by such means as they see fit, as long as these genres do not infringe on the restrictions described in clause 2.

Co-Authored By: Fonzoland
---------------------------------

Comments?

only suggested change-- clause 2 "other individuals, other governments, or the N.S.U.N"

2. DECLARES the rights of artists to create and interpret works of art, and of any person to divulge and preserve them, without interference from other individuals, the government, or the N.S.U.N., provided they:
I'm wondering if you mean "distribute" rather than "divulge"?

I'm also not too keen on the clause of "harmed, or likely to be harmed" regarding pornography (or other materials distasteful to a population's cultural and moral values). I'd prefer something more explicitly allowing a national government to regulate the distribution... but since I can't come up with phrasing that could not be too easily perverted by extreme regimes, I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

To Fonzoland. I like this. I have carefully read through the last posted draft and i cant fault it. It is with that in mind i can say with authority that when this is proposed in the UN proposals Queue I will give it the backing of my Delegation.
If it reaches quorum I will vote FOR the new resolution.

The Very Best of Luck old Boy.
VL.

only suggested change-- clause 2 "other individuals, other governments, or the N.S.U.N"

"Other" would create a huge loophole, arguably excluding the government of the country of origin, so I used "any."

Anyway, I think this is essentially ready to go. Let us know when you submit.

I think there should be something allowing artists to give up their rights to "no-interference" art voluntarily, like when under contract. Otherwise there's the possibility that artists would be free to sign a contract saying they'll build "a giant copper statue with a book and a flame held aloft", while the instead deliver "an 8-foot pudding sculpture of Spongebob".

I mean, if the government and other individuals are never allowed to "interfere", that would seem to mean trhey wouldn't be allowed to "intefere" even when the artist has agreed to make something and doesn't. Whether it's a clause or just some clarification, I think it's important to be sure artists are bound to agreements they make.

I think there should be something allowing artists to give up their rights to "no-interference" art voluntarily, like when under contract. Otherwise there's the possibility that artists would be free to sign a contract saying they'll build "a giant copper statue with a book and a flame held aloft", while the instead deliver "an 8-foot pudding sculpture of Spongebob".
The artists do have the right to create that pudding sculpture, as freedom of expression

However, as I read 2c, if they entered into a contract to create the copper statue (and fail to perform), they're still subject to whatever laws may apply to breach of contract.

Yes, my opinion is similar to Malclavia's.

Timeline:
- Artist and millionaire sign contract for "a giant copper statue with a book and a flame held aloft,"
- Artist creates "an 8-foot pudding sculpture of Spongebob," as is his unalianable right under this proposal,
- Millionaire rejects work, as it doesn't fit contract requirements,
- Artist either creates a statue as described, or gets sued by millionaire for breach of contract.

This contract does not interfere with the artist's freedom to create other pieces, so the artist is forced to respect it as per 2.c).

EDIT: However, it is an interesting point. I guess this proposal would make illegal to sign a contract with an artist restricting his artistic freedoms, eg prohibiting a writer of including erotic materials in his books. Which is fine by me, I find some of the clauses in RL outrageous, especially in the movie and music industry.

Urgh. Typically, people can always give up their rights willfully. I could, say, sign a contract with the US Government to not talk at all for a year. It's not a violation of my 1st Ammendment rights because I willfully gave up my rights. Therefore, in theory, an artist could give up his rights as described in this Proposal; he just couldn't be forced to give them up.

Urgh. Typically, people can always give up their rights willfully. I could, say, sign a contract with the US Government to not talk at all for a year. It's not a violation of my 1st Ammendment rights because I willfully gave up my rights. Therefore, in theory, an artist could give up his rights as described in this Proposal; he just couldn't be forced to give them up.

I guess so, in this case.

But I think the so called "unalienable rights" cannot be given up, even willfully. As seems to be the case in the big-time euthanasia debate.

But I think the so called "unalienable rights" cannot be given up, even willfully. As seems to be the case in the big-time euthanasia debate.Well, "inalienable rights" (life, liberty, persuit of happiness -- or property if you stick with Locke) aren't actually enshrined in law. In the US, they were mentioned in the Dec of Independance, which wasn't exactly, ya know, legal.

That aside, life and liberty can't be given up (but can be taken away by the State), which is why we have strange laws about suicide being illegal, to say nothing of assisted suicide. Persuit of happiness can be given up because, well, just do things you don't like; problem solved. Likewise, property can be given up simply by not owning anything (be a monk or something). As for the euthanasia side, it could be argued that someone who is terminally ill is not in a rational state of mind, and is therefore not compitent enough to sign away their rights, inalienable or otherwise.

The Democratic States of Andressa intends to vote for this resolution if and when it reaches quorum. Insuring the right of artists, authors, and musicians to express themselves without fear of government censorship is, we feel, vital to maintaining a vibrant culture. We also see it as a natural extension of the rights to free speech and freedom of the press.
Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassador to the NSUN

However, it is an interesting point. I guess this proposal would make illegal to sign a contract with an artist restricting his artistic freedoms, eg prohibiting a writer of including erotic materials in his books. Which is fine by me, I find some of the clauses in RL outrageous, especially in the movie and music industry.
I think that would only come into effect if the author was signing an exclusive contract.

For example, the Happy Fun Time Preschool Book Publishing Company might include a "no naughty stuff" clause in its contracts with authors. As long as the contract did not forbid the author from writing other books, or seeking publishers for those materials which HFTPBPCo determined as having "naughty stuff", no infringement of artistic expression occurred.

Just to be difficult, though... what happens if an editor cuts or modifies a paragraph or two? Does that infringe on the author's expression? (Yeah, I know, I'm nitpicking... I did say I was just being difficult, after all. I like this proposal, but what kind of fascist would I be if I didn't at least try to find something wrong with it?)

For example, the Happy Fun Time Preschool Book Publishing Company might include a "no naughty stuff" clause in its contracts with authors. As long as the contract did not forbid the author from writing other booksTechnically, they should still be allowed to do that. If the artist is willing to sign the contract, what's contained shouldn't much matter. As a real world f'rinstance, the man who does the voice of Mickey Mouse for Disney is under a contractual obligation to do no other voice work at all. No commercials, no other Disney characters, no Warner Bros. characters, nothing. He does Mickey, and that's it. He was willing to sign the contract and agree to the terms and he should be able to. Protecting rights is one thing, forcing them is another. Artists (or anyone else) should always be allowed to sign away any and all rights that they want.

Just to be difficult, though... what happens if an editor cuts or modifies a paragraph or two?This would be another problem. I suppose that with this Proposal, contracts would now need to include language allowing for editors to... er... edit.

Protecting rights is one thing, forcing them is another. Artists (or anyone else) should always be allowed to sign away any and all rights that they want.
That's the Real World, though... precedent in the NSUN appears to be that people can be prohibited from willingly entering into contracts that violate their "rights". :/

That's the Real World, though... precedent in the NSUN appears to be that people can be prohibited from anything and everything.

Fixed for accuracy.

Urgh. Typically, people can always give up their rights willfully. I could, say, sign a contract with the US Government to not talk at all for a year. It's not a violation of my 1st Ammendment rights because I willfully gave up my rights. Therefore, in theory, an artist could give up his rights as described in this Proposal; he just couldn't be forced to give them up.
Whew, that's good to see. If that's the way the mods see this--as "rights protection" and not "rights enforcement" (meaning you can give up your rights)--then I'm content, I think.

Technically, they should still be allowed to do that. If the artist is willing to sign the contract, what's contained shouldn't much matter. As a real world f'rinstance, the man who does the voice of Mickey Mouse for Disney is under a contractual obligation to do no other voice work at all. No commercials, no other Disney characters, no Warner Bros. characters, nothing. He does Mickey, and that's it. He was willing to sign the contract and agree to the terms and he should be able to. Protecting rights is one thing, forcing them is another. Artists (or anyone else) should always be allowed to sign away any and all rights that they want.

This would be another problem. I suppose that with this Proposal, contracts would now need to include language allowing for editors to... er... edit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think that an exclusive contract might be simply an issue of copyright. In other words, the author is still free to create anything he wants, however he grants full rights to the editor for deciding whether something can be distributed or not.

So in some sense, the issue is no longer one of censorship, but the editor's own right to distribute what he wants, also protected in this resolution.

LAE had have some concerns about the very first draft, we approved the last time it was submitted last month and we think the new one is once again improved.
We will approve it once more.

2. DECLARES the rights of artists to create and interpret works of art, and of any person to distribute and preserve them, without interference from other individuals, any government, or the N.S.U.N.,

So what about interference by organisations such as corporations, churches or unions, acting as a whole, rather than just by indidvidual members of those bodies? ;-)

So what about interference by organisations such as corporations, churches or unions, acting as a whole, rather than just by indidvidual members of those bodies? ;-)

Well, if you wanna be picky, there is nothing saying "other individuals acting alone," so it could also mean "other individuals associated in a group." :p

That's the Real World, though... precedent in the NSUN appears to be that people can be prohibited from anything and everything.

Fixed for accuracy.

Hey, my post was accurate... just limited in scope. :)

so whats a concerned government to do if a right wing musician puts out a song that incites hatred against a particular group of people or a politician writes a book that incites hatred?

or if a left-wing musician puts out a song that incites hatred against a particular group of people?

Point taken. There should be a clause declaring the right to create, interpret and divulge art. Then an attempt to eg burn a painting would be outlawed.


But what if that burning is declared to be an example of 'performance art'?

or if a left-wing musician puts out a song that incites hatred against a particular group of people?

with respect to the ambassador from St Edmund, 'hate speech' can take many forms. i just used one example.

Unfortunately since the right of free speech is guaranteed under the UN Bill of Rights we have to live with 'hate speech' until the bill of rights is repealed.

As contracts have been mentioned I'd like to add that when an artist signs a contract thats a private agreement and beyond the scope of the UN. This proposal won't change that state of affairs.

Kaigan Miromuta, Ambassador

But what if that burning is declared to be an example of 'performance art'?

Look, everything is "respecting property laws." The proposal only says that:
If you OWN the painting, you have the RIGHT to preserve it, and the Holy Inquisition is not allowed to burn it. Period. Burning your own painting is not banned, whatever the reason.

To all the people out there concerned about hate speech:

1. As I said before, there is a clause in our proposal saying artistic freedom does not apply to activities likely to harm others, so you are perfectly allowed to ban direct incitation of violence against either individuals or groups.

2. Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights is not so restrictive. Any incitation of violence through speech or the media is protected by Res #26, and so your hands are tied there. If you don't like it, submit a repeal.

OK? The Bill of Rights doesn't consider it, our baby does. Nice, no? Now support it! :)

As contracts have been mentioned I'd like to add that when an artist signs a contract thats a private agreement and beyond the scope of the UN. This proposal won't change that state of affairs.

With regard to contracts pertaining to artists, I don't consider this small point to be part of the purpose of this proposal. I think that a whole other resolution, possibly called "Sanctity of Contracts" would be better suited and more likely to address this issue you have.

This proposal is expected to be submitted tomorrow at Noon, GMT -5:00. Please leave any last-minute comments. The original post has been edited to reflect the current proposal form.

To those who are concerned about hate speech or messages of hate being portrayed and/or endorsed through art-work, I would say that it is difficult to judge what hate speech is, particularly in the context of art.

In fact, I would go so far to say that it is impossible. How does one decide whether the artist seeks to provoke or encourage thought, or is simply trying to incite hate. How does one ascertain the extent of the intent, in that once a particular complaint is addressed, others will emerge until a misleading interpretation of the artwork is created. Finally, how does one deal with the phenomonen of individuals or groups attempting shut down legitimate artists, musicians, intellectuals and institutions, purely on the grounds that they allegedly promote hate. For instance, if one group starts an "Art against Racism" movement, is that promoting hatred of the racists?

We are not against hate speech laws or other measures in Compadria, but we restrict them to speech and text, only to be used under the most stringent of constitutional standards. We are opposed to expansionn of these measures, mainly for the reasons outlined above.

Therefore we feel talk of "hatred" being promoted through artworks or other such artistic devices, is unfair and irrational. We support the resolution for its merits and intents and look forwards to a healthy future debate on it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

**Proposal Submitted**

Listed Here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=artistic

**Proposal Submitted**

Listed Here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=artistic

Approved, and lobbying for it.

Collins Gem dictionary of art: human skill as opposed to nature; creative skill in painting, poetry, music etc.; any of the works produced thus; knack; branches of learning other than science

Optischerian Definition of art: A foreign skill which is said to increase the culture of foreign nations, with culture being viewed as a negative point art in optischer is nevertheless existent. For example: The art of painting and drawing follows geometrical shapes; poetry is mainly in binary and jargon; and the use of it in music is for none other than ceremonial processions, military communication, cantina relaxation, methodical treatment and hobby. In science, it has no form or structure, and critics in optischer are known to be the harshest.

If you bothered to read all this, and understood it, then you will see optischer as anti artist-freedoms. Oh, and one more thing

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR

If you bothered to read all this, and understood it, then you will see optischer as anti artist-freedoms.

I am afraid I can only claim to have read it, not understood. Feel free to be anti-whatever, but do try to say more than "In my country we don't like it."

Anyway, Merry Christmas, make sure you don't set up a tree (that might be construed as art).

Trees are set up as a symbolistic object, and not art. We don't like art, but know when tinsel is good, when paper chains are hanging too low, and when there's too many baubles on the tree.
Oh, and please refer to my size 7 comment in my previous post.

Trees are set up as a symbolistic object, and not art. We don't like art, but know when tinsel is good, when paper chains are hanging too low, and when there's too many baubles on the tree.
Oh, and please refer to my size 7 comment in my previous post.

I would dispute this: A tree when set up as a symbolistic object is a form of art, because the intent behind the symbolism gives it an inherent meaning, thus resulting in a non-random decorative creation, which is normally called art.

Oh and we in Compadria wish you a very Happy Otterfest and a Merry New Year.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

we don't do Christmas as such in Kirisubo but the small Christian communty (about 250,000 people) practice it.

instead let me say Happy Emperors Birthday. It's on the 23rd and i'll be home for it :)

New Year is more our thing.