Passed: Artistic Freedom [Official Topic]
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://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=artistic
Compadria
27-12-2005, 02:43
I support it all and congratulate you on it, except for provision 2b, which in my opinion is too vague and leaves to high a margin of repression of an artists activities, if it could be construed that they were 'harmful'.
OOC: I will post a longer reply later, too tired at moment.
May the blessings of our otters be upon you.
Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Compadria
27-12-2005, 15:12
b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
Let us consider clause 2b: In it we see an intent, which is a noble one on the part of the authors, to ensure that no intentionally inflammatory or works that encourage violence are condoned within this resolution. However, noble as their intentions may be, Compadria opposes this clause, as we feel it leaves too many loopholes to continue the repression of artists and the witholding of legitimate artistic freedoms.
Firstly we must remember that no right "not to be offended" exists, so that works which may appear or are, racist, defamatory, etc, should be allowed to be presented as legitimate artworks. If we start saying what constitutes harmful or harming, we risk opening up a slew of unwanted possibilities. For instance, what if the artwork used in an anti-racism campaign has to be withdrawn because a far-right group labels it "harmful" and "inciting hatred of them which may lead to them being harmed". It is a possibility one must concede. Furthermore, what would happen if a legitimate criticism of government was suppressed on the grounds that it would be "harmful to state security". I feel there exists too much possibility for disaster.
We suggest that this clause be dropped and replaced with:
b) REFRAIN when appropriate, from using their artwork as an inflammatory factor to exacerbate tensions, be they racial, political, etc, where there exists the strong possibility that violence will follow.
which will be complemented by a clause:
REQUIRES state and local authorities to not unduly or consistantly pressurise an artist into self-censorship, nor to pass laws to that effect, where the freedoms of expression for an artist, shall be compromised by societal pressures which may lead to him self-censoring.
These are somewhat clunky, but they are our suggestions and we hope to perhaps discuss them more in depth.
May the blessings of our otters be upon you.
Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Fonzoland
28-12-2005, 17:47
Approvals: 96
Status: Lacking Support (requires 32 more approvals)
Please support the proposal here! (http://www.nationstates.net/58464/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=artistic) <<<=== clicky clicky
The usual offer of bribes and eternal gratitude stands.
Ausserland
29-12-2005, 01:38
We regret that we will be unable to support this proposal. We applaud the intent, but we share with the respected representative of Compadria the view that Section 2b is so broad in its language that it leaves the door wide open for nations to repress art that they find culturally or politically offensive. We also find that Section 2c gives nations wishing to repress artistic activity too many possibilities for doing so.
If we could think of ways to eliminate these concerns, we would have suggested them during the drafting process. But frankly, we're stumped. We've come to the lamentable conclusion that the line between artistic freedom and artistic license is too blurred to be effectively defined in NSUN legislation.
Ausserland will vote no on this proposal in hopes that its authors or others can find ways around our dilemma in subsequent submissions.
Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 01:46
We regret that we will be unable to support this proposal. We applaud the intent, but we share with the respected representative of Compadria the view that Section 2b is so broad in its language that it leaves the door wide open for nations to repress art that they find culturally or politically offensive. We also find that Section 2c gives nations wishing to repress artistic activity too many possibilities for doing so.
Precisely the reason we will be wholeheartedly supporting this.
Kernwaffen
29-12-2005, 02:12
I'm confused as to what this...artistic freedom is and therefore we will not support it if clauses 2b and 2c are removed or amended.
Art shouldnt be copyrighted anyway, and it would be illegal for someone to distribute a painting claiming it was made by someone other than the artist.
What if the art is offensive to the national culture? The government can't prevent it under your law. And it SEEMS that you are going for introducing political correctness into art, which would mean my government would have to afford equal support to a natural landscape as it would for a pile of old coke cans.
*Shall vote against*
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 17:41
Art shouldnt be copyrighted anyway, and it would be illegal for someone to distribute a painting claiming it was made by someone other than the artist.
1. This resolution makes no judgement on whether art should be copyrighted or not. It just voids its protections in case copyright (or other property right) is infringed upon.
2. I believe most of us would argue that art should be copyrighted. Artists need to make a living.
What if the art is offensive to the national culture? The government can't prevent it under your law. And it SEEMS that you are going for introducing political correctness into art, which would mean my government would have to afford equal support to a natural landscape as it would for a pile of old coke cans.
The government cannot prevent it, even if it is offensive. As such, it SEEMS I am not going for PC at all. Nothing in the proposal forces any government to support any artistic activity; but you can still support whatever you like.
*Shall vote against*
Please don't.
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 18:01
We regret that we will be unable to support this proposal. We applaud the intent, but we share with the respected representative of Compadria the view that Section 2b is so broad in its language that it leaves the door wide open for nations to repress art that they find culturally or politically offensive. We also find that Section 2c gives nations wishing to repress artistic activity too many possibilities for doing so.
If we could think of ways to eliminate these concerns, we would have suggested them during the drafting process. But frankly, we're stumped. We've come to the lamentable conclusion that the line between artistic freedom and artistic license is too blurred to be effectively defined in NSUN legislation.
Ausserland will vote no on this proposal in hopes that its authors or others can find ways around our dilemma in subsequent submissions.
This proposal is indeed weak in their protections. I believe the UN should give general guidelines, relatively open to interpretation by national governments. You would favour something stronger, and I understand your point. But rejecting a proposal you agree with just because it is not strong enough seems like walking to work because your car is not a Ferrari. I believe attempts have been made in the past, and yet artistic freedoms have never materialised as a resolution. I suggest that if this proposal loses a vote, it is unlikely that an alternative will be passed in the near future.
On other news: Quorum, yay.
Ecopoeia
29-12-2005, 18:13
This proposal is indeed weak in their protections. I believe the UN should give general guidelines, relatively open to interpretation by national governments. You would favour something stronger, and I understand your point. But rejecting a proposal you agree with just because it is not strong enough seems like walking to work because your car is not a Ferrari. I believe attempts have been made in the past, and yet artistic freedoms have never materialised as a resolution. I suggest that if this proposal loses a vote, it is unlikely that an alternative will be passed in the near future.
On other news: Quorum, yay.
This is regrettable. I concur with the views presented by Ambassadors Holt and Barfanger. I would go further: this is a philistine's charter that would bring shame on the United Nations were it to pass.
Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 18:19
This is regrettable. I concur with the views presented by Ambassadors Holt and Barfanger. I would go further: this is a philistine's charter that would bring shame on the United Nations were it to pass.
Now you confused me. How does protecting artistic freedom qualify as philistine? How does it bring shame to the UN?
Ecopoeia
29-12-2005, 18:24
Now you confused me. How does protecting artistic freedom qualify as philistine? How does it bring shame to the UN?
OOC: it's bluster. Vergniaud's an arse.
IC:
The protections offered are merely a veil that conceal how this proposal legitimises the persecution of artists who are politically or culturally provocative.
I refer you to the statement made by the Gruenberg ambassador in response to the fears expressed by Ambassador Barfanger of Ausserland.
MV
The protections offered are merely a veil that conceal how this proposal legitimises the persecution of artists who are politically or culturally provocative.
How so? This proposal is not saying that any edgy, provocative artist can be persecuted against. All it is saying is that if there is a legitimate threat to primarily physical forms of hurt, the rights of the artistic expression may by compromised. I dont see how this in any way does what you claim.
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 18:36
OOC: it's bluster. Vergniaud's an arse.
IC:
The protections offered are merely a veil that conceal how this proposal legitimises the persecution of artists who are politically or culturally provocative.
I refer you to the statement made by the Gruenberg ambassador in response to the fears expressed by Ambassador Barfanger of Ausserland.
MV
I suggest you read the proposal. It protects a specific right under specific circumstances. It does not legitimise or condone persecution, any more than it legitimises or condones pink underwear.
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 19:28
If I'm reading this correctly:
Band releases anti-government album
Government realizes this album will harm its public appearance, damage its prestige, and possibly lead to job losses
Album is banned
Government destroys band in an orgy of blood and mayhem
I'm still not seeing any reason to vote against.
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 19:34
If I'm reading this correctly:
Band releases anti-government album
Government realizes this album will harm its public appearance, damage its prestige, and possibly lead to job losses
Album is banned
Government destroys band in an orgy of blood and mayhem
I'm still not seeing any reason to vote against.
A government is not a person. Public opinion, imho, does not qualify as "harm." So the situation you described would be disallowed.
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 19:37
A government is not a person. Public opinion, imho, does not qualify as "harm." So the situation you described would be disallowed.
Gruenberg does not base its UN policy on foreign infidels' 'imho' statements.
In any case, if we decide the album might cut people, because the box has sharp corners, we can still to ban it.
Anyway, I support this. I don't see why you're arguing against this.
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 19:40
Gruenberg does not base its UN policy on foreign infidels' 'imho' statements.
In any case, if we decide the album might cut people, because the box has sharp corners, we can still to ban it.
Anyway, I support this. I don't see why you're arguing against this.
It should be obvious that some disagree for the same reasons you agree with it.
If you decide the album might cut people, you cannot ban it. If you decide the album is likely to cut people, you can ban it. Which is fair game imho.
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 19:51
It should be obvious that some disagree for the same reasons you agree with it.
If you decide the album might cut people, you cannot ban it. If you decide the album is likely to cut people, you can ban it. Which is fair game imho.
'Likely' is not defined. What I like about this is that it actually clarifies the government right to do this: before it was a bit iffy. Now we can be certain that we are allowed to defend the public from pornography likely to harm them, like depictions of paedophilia. Or communism.
'Likely' is not defined.
Sorry, 'the' is also not defined.
pornography likely to harm them, like depictions of paedophilia.
Pedophilia is already banned, so this proposal doesn't really have anything to do with that. Other then that, show me "pornography likely to harm", because if its something other then nude women telling people to kill their neighbors, i think it may be hard to provide evidence that constitutes the likelyhood of harm.
I think many who oppose this proposal are taking the limits of harmfulness and other aspects of the proposal much further then is implied, written, or meant.
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 19:59
Sorry, 'the' is also not defined.
True...your point? No one's raised an objection to your use of 'the'.
I repeat: I would be likely to oppose most proposals of this type. Yet I'm supporting this one. I really think there are actual opponents you'd do better to argue with.
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 20:01
Pedophilia is already banned, so this proposal doesn't really have anything to do with that. Other then that, show me "pornography likely to harm", because if its something other then nude women telling people to kill their neighbors, i think it may be hard to provide evidence that constitutes the likelyhood of harm.
Paedophilic pornography is not banned.
In any case, 'pornography' was a term for things which are generally bad. In the case of Communist Manifesto, for example, it can clearly be seen that those influenced by this rag will be likely to not contribute to the national economy, as is their duty, and may even foment violent insurrection. We'd go so far as to say it was likely those reading CM would have communist ideas develop as a result, which would harm some people in Gruenberg, such as factory owners. And so it burns.
EDIT: And, urm, where's the need for 'evidence'?
Ausserland
29-12-2005, 20:03
This proposal is indeed weak in their protections. I believe the UN should give general guidelines, relatively open to interpretation by national governments. You would favour something stronger, and I understand your point. But rejecting a proposal you agree with just because it is not strong enough seems like walking to work because your car is not a Ferrari. I believe attempts have been made in the past, and yet artistic freedoms have never materialised as a resolution. I suggest that if this proposal loses a vote, it is unlikely that an alternative will be passed in the near future.
On other news: Quorum, yay.
To clarify our position -- we agree with the intent of the proposal; we do not agree with the proposal. We simply believe that the proposal leaves too many opportunities for governments that want to repress art to do so. It fails to achieve its intent.
As for voting against the proposal.... Since we believe the proposal will not accomplish its purpose, we see no reason to add it to the rolls of resolutions. Further, having this proposal in place would discourage the possible drafting of a more effective one by requiring a repeal before submission.
Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Fonzoland
29-12-2005, 20:05
Fonzoland,
DEFINING:
a) 'Harm' to mean physical or psychological injury or damage,
b) 'Likely' to mean something reasonable, probable, credible, rather than freakish coincidences,
DECIDES to move on with the debate.
Gruenberg
29-12-2005, 20:11
Gruenberg
DEFINING:
a) 'Harm' to mean physical, psychological, mental, social, economic or other injury, damage, loss, distress or impairment,
b) 'Likely' within the context of the particular case as being possible without undue divine intervention or truly freakish natural coincidence,
AGREES to move on with the debate.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
31-12-2005, 22:54
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: ...
b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities, ...Point of order: This proposal -- as it allows governmental interference in the production of art and free expression and even implies that governments have the right to arrest artists if the content of their portfolio would cause "harm" or "likely harm" -- stands in direct contravention to terms already agreed to in the Universal Bill of Rights and Freedom of Conscience, and is thus illegal. We do not understand the Secretariat's decision to allow this vote to proceed, seeing as how we are now considering repealing another such proposal that was plainly illegal and yet was passed and enshrined in international law.
Aside from that, this proposal is just plain stupid. We will be casting our lone vote against once the roll is called.
Kenny has spoken.
Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations
Point of order: This proposal -- as it allows governmental interference in the production of art and free expression and even implies that governments have the right to arrest artists if the content of their portfolio would cause "harm" or "likely harm" -- stands in direct contravention to terms already agreed to in the Universal Bill of Rights and Freedom of Conscience, and is thus illegal. We do not understand the Secretariat's decision to allow this vote to proceed, seeing as how we are now considering repealing another such proposal that was plainly illegal and yet was passed and enshrined in international law.
Aside from that, this proposal is just plain stupid. We will be casting our lone vote against once the roll is called.
As stated right in plain text at the beginning of the proposal, Artistic Freedom is not mentioned in The Universal Bill of Rights nor any other resolution. Therefore, this proposal is in no way illegal or "stupid". We suggest you use a more logical outlook and a less sarcastic approach when disagreeing with a proposal.
Also, if an author's book causes a new Nazi uproar which kills millions (which we would consider under the definition of "harm"), do you not think the author is responsible in a way?
by it's very nature art is open to interpretation.
one person could interpret a paiting to be pro a certain movement or event
annother could think it condems said event. thus you cannot allow governements to ban things that they think are " harmful" as they may have wilfully misconstrued the artist's meaing behind a piece to stop it from being released becasue they dont like the artist.
also to try to create a bill desisgned to protect freedome of speach but have sed bill containing a law allowing a government to supress certain pieces of art if they are deemed harmful is hypocritical, but sensible.
Also, if an author's book causes a new Nazi uproar which kills millions (which we would consider under the definition of "harm"), do you not think the author is responsible?
is said person any less entitled to his view than any other? admittedly it would be better to try to persuade him to wright it without inciting violence adn merely laying out his views however he could claim that this was just the people who already have violent tendancies misinterpreting, back to that word again, his views as an excuse to go on a rampage adn taht any sane person would not act thus.
my 2 cents
Wyldtree
01-01-2006, 01:20
Wyldtree regretably cannot support this resolution based on reasons already mentioned regarding section 2b. This resolution seemingly would act against the very Artistic freedoms it supposedly wishes to preserve. What is harmful in a social or mental capacity is too widely open to interpretation by all governments. It seems this resolution would be ineffectual as it basically leaves what is harmful and thus unsuitable art to the public in the hands of inidividual governments anyways. On behalf of Wyldtree I encourage everyone to stand against the artistic persecution written between the lines.
On behalf of Wyldtree I encourage everyone to stand against the artistic persecution written between the lines.
You as well as many others seem to extend the definition of "harm" well beyond its intended borders. "Harm" is not intended to be economical harm or any other irrelevant harm as many of you have suggested. Please consider harm to be as it is defined on dictionary.com:
Harm n. the loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being
If an artist's work causes this, it is the national government's right to restrict the publication of said artwork. This clause is to possibly prevent primarily violent propoganda through the form of art; it is in NO WAY trying to persecute artists, only trying to prevent art that presents a serious threat to another individuals well being.
Wyldtree
01-01-2006, 01:59
You as well as many others seem to extend the definition of "harm" well beyond its intended borders. "Harm" is not intended to be economical harm or any other irrelevant harm as many of you have suggested. Please consider harm to be as it is defined on dictionary.com:
Harm n. the loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being
If an artist's work causes this, it is the national government's right to restrict the publication of said artwork. This clause is to possibly prevent primarily violent propoganda through the form of art; it is in NO WAY trying to persecute artists, only trying to prevent art that presents a serious threat to another individuals well being.
Wyldtree understands the intent you claim, but you must also understand that other nations may also extend the meaning of harm beyond your intent in the resolution. That is why the nation of Wyldtree cannot support this resolution. Anything offensive could be deemed harmful to people's mental well-being.
extend the meaning of harm
What's to stop nations from extending the meaning of any and every word then and thus rendering any and every resolution meaningless?
Wyldtree
01-01-2006, 02:17
What's to stop nations from extending the meaning of any and every word then and thus rendering any and every resolution meaningless?
My point stands. I'm sorry but the section regarding harm is vague and this resolution cannot be supported by Wyldtree. I do not see that this resolution would accomplish anything.
What's to stop nations from extending the meaning of any and every word then and thus rendering any and every resolution meaningless?
The wording of the resolutions are extremely important, much as the same reasons they are important for laws. It is vital that the resolutions be properly interpreted by its true intent and principles or else it becomes ineffective.
In its present state, Iccara will not support this resolution. If and when it is modified in a more concrete form, Iccara will reassess. There is little doubt as to the nobility of this resolution (artistic expression is important for a fair and progressing society), however it is essential that the resolution does not conflict negatively.
-Mark Sandoval
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Iccara
Jamesamasaurus
01-01-2006, 07:56
We are mostly concerned with this statement:
"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."
Certain neighborhoods in Jamesamasaurus have rules and guidelines as what people can and cannot do. For instance certain neighborhoods make you water your lawn or else you get charged a fine. This is done so that the houses in the neighborhood don't loose value. With this resolution if someone were to make a sculpture of a giant penis on their front lawn, then the houses in the neighborhood would decrease in value.
We are concerned that with this law people will be able to do whatever they wanted to on their property and declare it as art. And then nobody would be able to do anything about it because people aren't allowed to interfere with art.
We will be voting no unless someone can convince us we are reading this wrong and people will still be able to regulate what people put on their lawns.
Note: Not all neighborhoods have guidelines, they are mostly the middle-upper class neighborhoods. But they still exist and we feel they should have that right.
Dittorush
01-01-2006, 13:24
Most opposition to this resolution seems to be on the basis that provision 2B is too vague. This is precisely why we should pass this resolution. By not specifically enumerating protected artistic form of expression, and instead defining them as an intellectual or physical work, the proposed resolution extends protection not only to the example items, but also to other forms such as video games, magazines, original works that, depending on your viwpoint, may or may not consitute art, and anything else that the creative human mind produces. Let's protect our cultures by extending artistic freedom to all artists to produce whatever they like. Individuals can decide whether or not to follow a given artisan based on the principles put forth in his or her work.
The Empire of Dromeda can/will not support or accept this or any similar resolution as we see it as a violation of our sovereignity, The Emperor and only the Emperor grants rights and freedoms than can not be legislated internally or externally
Gruenberg
01-01-2006, 15:10
Please consider harm to be as it is defined on dictionary.com:
Harm n. the loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being
No.
It is NOT YOUR PLACE to tell us how to interpret your proposals. You write them; we read them. If you wanted to define harm as that, then you should have done so. You didn't, and thus the definition falls to us.
At first I was thinking of supporting this resolution, as I find that it protects that which future generations will use as a measure of a civilization's greatness. But as I read it again, I looked more closely, and found elements that caused me concern.
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,
How does one prove that a piece's PRIMARY purpose was attaining aesthetic value. This simply creates a loophole that seditious hatemongers can utilise to diseminate their propoganda.
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;
And this creates a loophole that allows people to neatly violate copyright protections by adding or altering a small elment within a piece, and then calling it a new "interpretation of an existing work."
What worries me is that this resolution would allow the dissemination of offensive materials in the name of art. And I'm not talking about porn, in fact I like porn. But this would allow say, pedophilic materials, to be passed off as art. And that is just one example. If people would be so kind as to simply try and think along these lines, I'm sure that they would find something they would not like to see, that is protected by this resolution.
The resolution is too subjective to gain my support.
_Myopia_
01-01-2006, 16:19
No.
It is NOT YOUR PLACE to tell us how to interpret your proposals. You write them; we read them. If you wanted to define harm as that, then you should have done so. You didn't, and thus the definition falls to us.
I have to agree with this. "Harm" is a very ambiguous term, and thus needs to be defined. Whether something is viewed as "harm" depends on whether you view it as bad for the person, and whether you view it as significant (e.g. we can agree that upsetting someone is a negative experience for them, but does it constitute emotional "harm"?). The fact that you allow indirect harm to count means that all kinds of seemingly ridiculous reasonings are perfectly valid. It is perfectly justifiable to argue that a book set during a Marxist revolution that casts the revolutionaries and their actions in a positive light is likely to encourage some workers to take strike action etc. This can cause financial damage to people in these industries, and economic damage in general - people in financial trouble suffer real tangible harm, both directly from deprivation and through stress. Thus the work of art has caused indirect, but very real, harm.
The Eternal Kawaii
01-01-2006, 17:20
In the name of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised.)
While We are normally against NSUN resolutions on public expression, having found them in the past to be insensitive to Our national culture, We find ourselves in agreement with the esteemed representative from Gruenberg here. Art, like all forms of communication, is a two-way street. It is important to respect the rights of the audience as much as those of the artist. Accordingly, Our nation has well-established laws on propriety of public speech and behavior, to ensure that the individual, out of egoism, does not trample on the public's right to a serene and harmonious existence.
Also, if an author's book causes a new Nazi uproar which kills millions (which we would consider under the definition of "harm"), do you not think the author is responsible in a way?
I'm opposed to this proposal. The text, as mentioned, gives governments quite a bit of leeway when it comes to restricting art. In addition, I vehemently disagree with the proposal's definition of "art." It has been shown throughout history that some of the world's most famous art was not done with aesthetic value in mind.
As to the quote, no, an author would not be responsible. Those who committed the acts would be responsible, not the author of the novel. For instance, should the Beatles be held responsible for Charles Manson's acts?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10189177#post10189177
This simply creates a loophole that seditious hatemongers can utilise to diseminate their propoganda.
Here's a hint: hatemongers are already protected in their freedom of speech through Resolution #26. Just because you disagree with the hatemongers doesnt mean you can ban their work. Now, if thier work incited harmful acts against whomever they hate, there may be a way to prevent those harmful acts from potentially happening. All this proposal does extends this freedom of speech in Resolution #26 to artists, given they respect some laws.
Nataniel
01-01-2006, 19:40
It's been my belief that "speech" can be defined as any kind of expression--not just the spoken word--therefore this resolution is pointless.
Randomea
01-01-2006, 20:24
As a member of a liberal government it is my regret to say that this resolution as it stands does not receive my nation's support.
You have included 'novels' as works of art. I am afraid that I disagree as their main aim is rarely "the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value." A novel without underlying messages is rare. Moreover, if you include novels, what about the many forms of non-fiction? Political satire is surely art? However, if you then say 'of course non-fiction is art' then you leave the door wide open. Especially in terms of biographies and diaries. A governmental minister could say it is his or her fundamental right to produce art if they write a book revealing the inner mechanisms and decisions of government months after a controversial issue.
I also believe some countries have dubbed some books and films incendiary in nature and strictly monitor who owns, watches or reads such material. While I will not debate whether this is a 'right' thing to do I respect the decisions of the governments who do so.
((ooc: if you want a real life example, just take America and 'Mein Kampf'))
I believe a complete rephrasing is in order.
Metzania
01-01-2006, 20:34
Given Metzania's title (The Starving Artists) and inclinations toward the artistic (artistry is a passtime or occupation of over 70% of our nation), it would seem that our nation would instantly support the current UN Resolution, "Artistic Freedom."
However, the response of our leader Duke Metz II, upon seeing the resolution itself, was to publicly state, "No F---ing Way."
There are a number of problems with this resolution that restrict, rather than free the expression of art.
Upon the passage of this resolution, Artists must abide by a number of laws including copywright. Given that there is no official definition of international "Fair Use," and that copywright laws are different between nations, this resolution makes it perfectly possible for some art to be legal in one country and entirely illegal in another. Short of petitioning the UN or a national government, there's nothing an artist can do about this restriction, and it will prevent the flow of many different types of art among different nations. There is no "freedom" in being restricted to a particular nation when practicing your art, and this resolution deepens the problems associated with this by lacking an effective definition of fair artistic use of copywrighted material.
Additionally, the UN recognition of copywright in art, but not defining fair use opens up the possibility for an artist who has violated the laws of one country within another country which has lax fair use definitions to be unable to enter countries with more restrictive copywright in fear of prosecution. Metzania finds it disgusting that an artist could be held prisoner in a country that opposes their actions using some exploitation of this Resolution.
These problems are large enough, but the current resolution has also done the unspeakable disservice to artists everywhere of defining art and the artist. Specifically, art now has the official title of "work," a term which some artists would find stifiling in and of itself.
Worse, though, is the statment that A work of art is now defined 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."
By internationally limiting art to a definition, the UN will trample on the freedom of artists to express themselves. While aestheticism is a highly important part of art as a whole, and the primary purpose of some, it should never be construed as the purpose of art as a whole. By declaring art has to primarily have an "aesthetic value" completely undermines forms of art which have social, political, expression-based, educational, and other purposes as their primary intent. If a body of over 30,000 nations is short-sighted enough to vote for this act and restrict "art" to an official definition, it not only stifles the creativity of future artists, who will attempt to fit a mold that garauntees them governmental protection, it also calls into question all non-aesthetic forms of art that have been produced before the passage of this resolution as "lesser" or "inappropriate" in the eyes of the government, effectively dismissing large portions of artistic history.
Metzania will be voting AGAINST this resolution because of it's potentially damaging legal, critical, historical, and political rammifications, and encourages all nations and delegates to do the same.
The Most Glorious Hack
01-01-2006, 21:32
Also, if an author's book causes a new Nazi uproar which kills millions (which we would consider under the definition of "harm"), do you not think the author is responsible in a way?Thoughtcrime!
Here's a hint: hatemongers are already protected in their freedom of speech through Resolution #26. Just because you disagree with the hatemongers doesnt mean you can ban their work. Now, if thier work incited harmful acts against whomever they hate, there may be a way to prevent those harmful acts from potentially happening. All this proposal does extends this freedom of speech in Resolution #26 to artists, given they respect some laws.
Accepted and well argued. (I'm still waiting for the repeal on that one.)
To paraphrase a great 20th century philosopher, "Freedom of Speech was not intended to give every pissant an ant-hill to piss from.":p
It's been my belief that "speech" can be defined as any kind of expression--not just the spoken word--therefore this resolution is pointless.
Speech =/= putting a dab of blue paint on a canvas
All of mankind
01-01-2006, 22:06
I think that a person should be able to create works of art, just so long as it doesn't offend anyone or go against the ideals that our political parties uphold.
Darneaus
01-01-2006, 22:16
look now where in your law does it put a limit on what is art... if i have a wall and one of my minons... um people that is... paints on that wall and says its art your law says i cant punish him for expressing himself... well if that wall belongs to another person or the state i sure can... how about a nice clause in there stating art and ownership where its art when the person owns what he is working on and vandalism if he or she doesnt.
Fonzoland
01-01-2006, 22:22
Two points:
1. Many of you (including some who really should know better) are writing under the impression that this proposal gives governments the right to do things to works that do not satisfy the restrictions in 2. This is factually false. Governments will hold that right whether the proposal passes or not. REPEAT: Within each country, governments will be free to allow/disallow things outside the scope of this resolution, subject to other international law, whether this passes or not. All this proposal does is to remove the right of the government to restrict free expression in a specific activity (art), under specific restrictions (which are essentially there to guarantee that artists follow the law). Since such activity is mostly out of the scope of the Bill of Rights, this resolution does something. And guess what, it is NOT endorsing censorship.
2. Artistic activities should be protected unless they harm other people. That is the purpose of 2.b. Most people who argued against 2.b have taken the destructive approach, either referring to very specific situations, or redefining words beyond their well accepted meaning. It is fair game, but not very interesting. The sort of activities which are actually excluded from the protection are:
- snuff films
- child porn
- direct appeals to violence
2. (Yes, two. I said two points.) All the complaints about copyright are invalid. This resolution does not deal with copyright. Copyright is legislated elsewhere. All we say is this: If an activity fails to respect copyright laws, whatever they are, this resolution does not apply to that activity.
Fonzoland
01-01-2006, 22:24
look now where in your law does it put a limit on what is art... if i have a wall and one of my minons... um people that is... paints on that wall and says its art your law says i cant punish him for expressing himself... well if that wall belongs to another person or the state i sure can... how about a nice clause in there stating art and ownership where its art when the person owns what he is working on and vandalism if he or she doesnt.
EXERCISE: Please read the proposal and find the reference to property laws.
Outer Earth Colonies
01-01-2006, 22:35
I simply will vote no because I think that artists need to find other ways of generating income. Distribution is already a reality that cannot seem to be stopped. A resolution does nothing to effect the nature of our consumeristic selves.
I would happily see more artists performing live to make the money they would like froma career in music or performance. I pay for a theatre experience, not to see a spiderman movie (that just helps).
Wyldtree
01-01-2006, 22:35
Two points:
1. Many of you (including some who really should know better) are writing under the impression that this proposal gives governments the right to do things to works that do not satisfy the restrictions in 2. This is factually false. Governments will hold that right whether the proposal passes or not. REPEAT: Within each country, governments will be free to allow/disallow things outside the scope of this resolution, subject to other international law, whether this passes or not. All this proposal does is to remove the right of the government to restrict free expression in a specific activity (art), under specific restrictions (which are essentially there to guarantee that artists follow the law). Since such activity is mostly out of the scope of the Bill of Rights, this resolution does something. And guess what, it is NOT endorsing censorship.
This is correct but dodges the issue in the opinion of myself and the people of Wyldtree. In failing to properly address the issue of censorship of art this resolution offers no real artistic freedom. It does not actively endorse certain forms of censorship, but it does not give the sort of protections an artistic freedom act should in the opinion of Wyldtree. It is true that governments hold inidividual responsibility for censorship whether this passes or not. That is precisely why this resolution is meaningless.
2. Artistic activities should be protected unless they harm other people. That is the purpose of 2.b. Most people who argued against 2.b have taken the destructive approach, either referring to very specific situations, or redefining words beyond their well accepted meaning.
The definition that the very writer of this resolution posted included mental well being within it's bounds. I do not believe this is an unreasonable arguement.
Deaths Soldiers
01-01-2006, 22:57
i oppose this resolution in all ways
such freedom need not be give to the citizens of our world
artisitc freedom should be extremely limited if not punishable by force
MW
Leader of The Armed Republic of Deaths Soldiers
:headbang:
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,
Proposal Listed Here:
http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=artistic
That is not the full defenition of art mind you. Art doesnt necessarily need to be created with the purpose of attaining aesthetic value, as the purpose of some art (modern art, pop art, etc) is to get a (sometimes specific) reaction from the viewer. this created a problem (like in some pop art) because some works couldnt be justified as "art" because they didnt follow all of the guidelines of the known definition, and some artist didnt like the fact that their works werent recogniced as art. some works of art arent even objects, and sometimes not context specific....
this creates a problem with this resolution, as governments can ban other kinds of, well, (radical?) art...
comments anyone?
Democratic Socialists of Rom Alv
Intangelon
01-01-2006, 23:01
look now where in your law does it put a limit on what is art... if i have a wall and one of my minons... um people that is... paints on that wall and says its art your law says i cant punish him for expressing himself... well if that wall belongs to another person or the state i sure can... how about a nice clause in there stating art and ownership where its art when the person owns what he is working on and vandalism if he or she doesnt.
The main difference between public art and vandalism is permission. You make a good point about ownership.
Intangelon
01-01-2006, 23:11
Two points:
2. --snip-- The sort of activities which are actually excluded from the protection are:
- snuff films
- child porn
- direct appeals to violence
The resolution doesn't say those things or say what it does permit the prohibition of specifically enough. That's why I believe it to be too vague and why I will vote no.
OOC: In the countless state laws I've read and referenced when I was a licensing agent for the state of Washington, vagueness was simply bled out of legislation and law by ennumerating as many examples of the regulated behavior as possible and including a further "catch-all" phrase that blanketed enough potential loopholes to satisfy the legislators who passed it. An example would be the laws about "adult entertainment". That entire section mentions specific coverages of "adult entertainers'" bodies, specific distances patrons had to be from dancers, and even specified that male entertainers could not perform with their penii in a "visibly turgid state". Even in a fake UN, people crafting resolutions should have the presence of mind to be thorough enough to be able to specify or at least exemplify the behaviors they seek to permit or regulate.
Gruenberg
01-01-2006, 23:20
OOC
- snuff films
- child porn
- direct appeals to violence
These aren't necessarily excluded at all.
- granted, involves 'harm'...but it's already happened. It's not going to harm anyone else. And the person it did harm is not around to complain.
- why? Outlaw Pedophilia is a Moral Decency resolution. This implies we have the right to molest pre-pubescent minors, but it's restricted. Maybe banning child porn would be further restricting that right?
- if the law judges that appeal unlikely to lead to actual violence, then direct appeals to violence are protected.
I hate making OOC posts in this case, because it's one of those weird scenarios where OOC I should support, but don't, and IC should oppose, but don't. Nonetheless, I still do not consider it fair for you to lay out definitions which are not contained in your resolution.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
01-01-2006, 23:28
As stated right in plain text at the beginning of the proposal, Artistic Freedom is not mentioned in The Universal Bill of Rights nor any other resolution. Therefore, this proposal is in no way illegal or "stupid".Oh, you mean this?:
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; ...[scoffs] Art Appreciation 101, kid: a "medium" is any avenue through which an idea is expressed.* "Media" is the plural form. Therefore, you're half-right: It is not merely "the majority," but all art that is "transmitted by media." Therefore, UBoR does give protections to artists that section 2b of this proposal seeks to limit.
And the honorable Gruenberger rep is absolutely right: It is not your place to interpret the text of a resolution; it is ours. We are the ones charged with enforcing it.
* See Definition #8 (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/medium).
Intangelon
01-01-2006, 23:31
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
Emphases added.
CONSIDERING that the rights of artists are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;
Given the following, I submit that this "consideration" is inaccurate:
If all human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and "the media", what is the need for this resolution? R26 does NOT define what "the media" is -- or rather ARE, since "media" is the plural of the word "medium". "Medium" is defined as:
1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on. [The key words here are "something" and "conveyed"]
3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred: The train was the usual medium of transportation in those days.
4. A means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television.
media (used with a sing. or pl. verb) 5. The group of journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession.
pl. media Computer Science. 6. An object or device, such as a disk, on which data is stored.
pl. mediums 7. A person thought to have the power to communicate with the spirits of the dead or with agents of another world or dimension. Also called psychic.
pl. media 8. A surrounding environment in which something functions and thrives.
9. The substance in which a specific organism lives and thrives. A culture medium.
10. A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography.
The materials used in a specific artistic technique: oils as a medium.
11. A solvent with which paint is thinned to the proper consistency.
Chemistry. 12. A filtering substance, such as filter paper.
A size of paper, usually 18 × 23 inches or 17 1/2 × 22 inches.
If you can see that this definition includes artistic considerations, then this resolution is needless. Failing that, if you can see that the word "media" was undefined and therefore too vague to allow such a restrictive and exclusory statement regarding R26, then this resolution is, again, needless.
Intangelon and Greater Seattle have seen these flaws and while we certainly support uncensored artistic expression, we see no need for this resolution as it either re-enumerates a previously assured freedom or is too vague in and of itself to guarantee anything but arguments. A valiant effort that needs much refining. We vote no.
Jubal Harshaw, Magister Intangelon
UN Representative for Greater Seattle
Oh, you mean this?:
[scoffs] Art Appreciation 101, kid: a "medium" is any avenue through which an idea is expressed.* "Media" is the plural form. Therefore, you're half-right: It is not merely "the majority," but all art that is "transmitted by media." Therefore, UBoR does give protections to artists that section 2b of this proposal seeks to limit.
But "transmitted by media" does not occur in that order at all in UBoR. "transmitted by THE media" does. A medium =/= THE media. There is a world of difference between the two.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
02-01-2006, 00:36
A medium =/= THE media. There is a world of difference between the two.There is no difference. They are one and the same. Radio, television, movies, billboards, advertising, newspapers, books, magazines: all are media. Which is why we call them that.
We hardly consider the common colloquial addition of the article "the" significant.
There is no difference. They are one and the same. Radio, television, movies, billboards, advertising, newspapers, books, magazines: all are media. Which is why we call them that.
We hardly consider the common colloquial addition of the article "the" significant.
We disagree. We consider Radio, television, movies, billboards, advertising, newspapers, books, magazines to be the media. They are the most common mediums and are referenced together to form the media. "The" media include and is limited to these practices and other very similar ones. Therefore, since art is not normally transferred through "the" media, its not covered in UBoR.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
02-01-2006, 01:13
We disagree. We consider Radio, television, movies, billboards, advertising, newspapers, books, magazines to be the media. They are the most common mediums and are referenced together to form the media. "The" media include and is limited to these practices and other very similar ones. Therefore, since art is not normally transferred through "the" media, its not covered in UBoR.(Sigh) Again, we would note:
We hardly consider the common colloquial addition of the article "the" significant.And again, we would note:
It is not your place to interpret the text of a resolution; it is ours. We are the ones charged with enforcing it.
The Most Glorious Hack
02-01-2006, 01:22
But "transmitted by media" does not occur in that order at all in UBoR. "transmitted by THE media" does. A medium =/= THE media. There is a world of difference between the two.Shipped by a train. Shipped by the trains. Drove in a car. Drove in the cars. Transmitted by a medium. Transmitted by the media.
The article shifts because the word is plural, not because its making a designation. If it was to make a designation to specifically target newspapers and suchwise, the letters would have been capitalized. ie: The Media. Using lower case letters means that it is speaking in general terms, not specific ones mentioning a proper noun.
It is obvious to any observer that the vast majority of us discussing the resolution have no question to its nobility and ultimately what its purpose is for. However as was aptly phrased, it is up to us to interpret the resolutions because it is up to us to properly use them. While it is understandable that an "open palm" approach (open as to not accidentally exclude) is very useful, especially when dealing with a freedom that is in itself open to interpretation, it is important that the resolution itself is not only functional but positively productive for all of our nations. This means that a careful balance between the two is necessary to obtain the best outcome. Unfortunately at this time it is not balanced between intent and productivity (functional and useful).
Again, we as a whole do not object to its intent. Most of us do support it in that regard. However if our nations are to properly use this resolution, any UN resolution, it must be effective. There is no rush to push out this resolution - infact it would be far better to simply reword it and have it out in a week or two. If there is any victory to be held by this resolution for all of us in progression of our society, it is to our advantage to do it spot-on the first time.
Mark Sandoval
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Iccara
It is not your place to interpret the text of a resolution; it is ours. We are the ones charged with enforcing it.
Jey fails to see the difference between the importance of your interpretation of the text of a resolution and ours. If it is not our proposal (as UBoR is), then our interpretation shall be taken the same as yours.
Your Ugly Website
02-01-2006, 01:49
Here is the problem that Your Ugly Website has with this legislation:
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,
We are a nation composed of mostly religious people. This legislation, in our opinion, reflects a slanted and anti-religious view of art. It says that 'the primary purpose' of art is 'attaining aesthetic value'. In the view of many if not most of our own citizens, that is not the primary purpose of art. The primary purpose of art is to instill values and to teach. You are not respecting our religious rights in imposing an 'art for art's sake' view of art. For that reason, we cannot endorse this legislation.
I am sure that no sensible person will speak boldly against freedom of expression, after all, it is not politically correct in a secularized world that is heavily influenced by Hollywood.
However, in our view, this legislation is not a harmless plea for artistic freedom. It appears that the real goal of this proposal is to promote values which are not necessarily shared by the majority of people in the world. Most people on this planet are highly religious and most nations are not as 'liberal' as you media elites like to think. What if they don't share your view as to the purpose of art?
Everything required to follow the resolution needs to be contained in it, excluding common knowledge. To prevent misinterpretation, which appears to be occurring at this time for both sides of the debate, clear definitions (DEFINING <blank>) should be used when a specific term is grey in the eyes of some member nations (for example, "harm"). The dictionary is in itself not designed for concepts but in creating a format where such concepts can be interpreted.
We are not making a personal slam on anyone - we just want an effective resolution that will hopefully never need to be repealed because of terminology. It would be a sad fate for such a noble resolution.
Because the clear-cut definition of "harm" is not useful for all contexts, especially this one, then defining the context and purpose of harm in a clause would be incredibly useful. Nations that have not been reading this debate would benefit.
I am sure that no sensible person will speak boldly against freedom of expression, after all, it is not politically correct in a secularized world that is heavily influenced by Hollywood.
What is this "Hollywood" you speak of?
The nation seems to not exist.
Uh-oh
Nation Not Found: "Hollywood"
If possible, use your browser's BACK button to return and fix this.
Perhaps you meant the Region (http://www.nationstates.net/region=HollyWood)?
Most people on this planet are highly religious
Which planet?
and most nations are not as 'liberal' as you media elites like to think.
What makes you think any of us are members of the media? Or "elite", for that matter?
Alcarataz820
02-01-2006, 02:20
There are both ups and downs reguarding this issue, but the main fact is; if we allow the public to say what they want wherever they want then all the little facts and secrets that hold this world together will be exploited and all of the hard work that mankind alike has worked toward and build with there own blood, will have done nothing. And besides, don't you think that there was a reason for a GOVERNMENT in the first place???? TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION IN IT'S MANY SHAPES AND FORMS. Elected officials are there for a reason. Key word "ELECTED." Which means you, the public, elected them to handle matters above you. So don't just all of a sudden, go behind there backs and take matters in your own hands, NO That's not how it works. And If any of you have a problem with what I have to say, send me a message..... I will gladly deal with you.
The Most Glorious Hack
02-01-2006, 02:41
And besides, don't you think that there was a reason for a GOVERNMENT in the first place???? TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION IN IT'S MANY SHAPES AND FORMS.Er, no.
Well, that's not the reason for non-totalitarian, non-oppresive governments...
Fonzoland
02-01-2006, 02:55
Since everyone decided to argue about the words "the media," here is a complete dictionary entry that encompasses both meanings.
me·di·um n. pl. me·di·a or me·di·ums
1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred: The train was the usual medium of transportation in those days.
4. pl. media Usage Problem.
1. A means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television.
2. media (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The group of journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession.
5. pl. media Computer Science. An object or device, such as a disk, on which data is stored.
6. pl. mediums A person thought to have the power to communicate with the spirits of the dead or with agents of another world or dimension. Also called psychic.
7. pl. media
1. A surrounding environment in which something functions and thrives.
2. The substance in which a specific organism lives and thrives.
3. A culture medium.
8.
1. A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography.
2. The materials used in a specific artistic technique: oils as a medium.
9. A solvent with which paint is thinned to the proper consistency.
10. Chemistry. A filtering substance, such as filter paper.
11. A size of paper, usually 18 × 23 inches or 17 1/2 × 22 inches.
Some interpret "the media" as meaning 2 or 8, which would arguably encompass all arts. Others interpret "the media" as meaning 4, which would only encompass mass communication.
I disagree with Hack and Kenny: I believe the article "the" does have significance in this case. In correct english, reference to all possible supports with meaning 2 or 8 would be written "through any media" or "through all media", or simply "through media." "Through the media" would only be used in this sense if said media had been previously specified. On the other hand, usage of media in the alternative sense (meaning 4) is accompanied by the article.
Picking up on Hack's example, a resolution stating "The UN bans the cars" would be incorrect, while "The UN bans cars" or "The UN bans all cars" would be correct.
EDIT: And whatever meaning you consider would not encompass a ballet.
Here is the problem that Your Ugly Website has with this legislation:
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,
We are a nation composed of mostly religious people. This legislation, in our opinion, reflects a slanted and anti-religious view of art. It says that 'the primary purpose' of art is 'attaining aesthetic value'. In the view of many if not most of our own citizens, that is not the primary purpose of art. The primary purpose of art is to instill values and to teach. You are not respecting our religious rights in imposing an 'art for art's sake' view of art. For that reason, we cannot endorse this legislation.
I am sure that no sensible person will speak boldly against freedom of expression, after all, it is not politically correct in a secularized world that is heavily influenced by Hollywood.
However, in our view, this legislation is not a harmless plea for artistic freedom. It appears that the real goal of this proposal is to promote values which are not necessarily shared by the majority of people in the world. Most people on this planet are highly religious and most nations are not as 'liberal' as you media elites like to think. What if they don't share your view as to the purpose of art?
The key word in the "defining" clause being "for the purposes of this resolution". To compare it to programming, it's like assigning a variable. It doesn't matter what word was used: art, work of art, Ceorana, my left elbow: It's all the same, because now it means: 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. So works created for teaching purposes are not covered at all by this resolution.
if we allow the public to say what they want wherever they want
If? We already do. Resolution #26.
Gruenberg
02-01-2006, 03:12
Jey fails to see the difference between the importance of your interpretation of the text of a resolution and ours. If it is not our proposal (as UBoR is), then our interpretation shall be taken the same as yours.
Right. So don't dictate to us how we implement your resolution. I certainly don't intend on telling the Jevian government how best to interpret and comply with this resolution.
Right. So don't dictate to us how we implement your resolution.
All I've asked of is to interpret the meaning of "harm" as its normal and commonly accepted definition, and that means by primarily physical and psychological means. If we can't fully accept one undefined word's definition in a resolution, what's to stop us to not fully accept any and every word to the point where any and every resolution is basically pointless?
It is the feeling of the People of Balsack that, once you attempt to define art, you limit it. Art may not just be something that has some aesthetic value. It may be something that intentionally offends. Art is Art, because it is.
This resolution attempts to regulate and control art, without the authors realizing that this is the end result; simply be placing some definition on it. For this reason, Balsack cannot endorse or support this resolution, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.
Majester
02-01-2006, 10:29
The Principality of Majester hereby notes its objection to any resolution that weakens the enshrined rights of its subjects. The weakness of the language in this resolution allows for the insidious undermining of treasured UN freedoms by causing the limitation the the very rights it propounds to protect. We hold that a resolution that purports to expand rights should use expansive language that errs on the side of freedom; and not limit them with detail that falliciously supposes that governments are benign, peoples generous, and opinions homogenous.
His Majesty is unable to see how this resolution expands upon the freedom of artisic expression, will not be misused by Government either benignly or beligerently, and notes that it deprives His subjects of the very freedoms His holy reign guarantees as granted by the Gods. His Majesty thus advises a vote against said resolution in the national referendum on this UN resolution.
Futhermore, His Majesty implores our fellow states to note the myopic intent and real dangers to existing UN rights of this resolution. He calls upon all to resoundedly stand against the implied oppression and limitations of this resolution by soundly rejecting its passage.
The Small and Tiny
02-01-2006, 11:35
Gentlemen, I, the Royal Advisor of King Dwarf IV in Foreign Affairs, would like to once more turn your attention to the following part of the proposed resolution:
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:
c) RESPECT any other relevant legislation that does not directly restrict their freedom of expression;
Therefore it can be deducted, that "an artist" can avoid and directly work against the laws and the constitution of a community and perform criminal deeds. While normally called "a criminal", one must only define his deeds as "art" or "performance" or "intellectual construct", if You prefer, to be called "an artist". And, as this resolution, if accepted, would imply, the title "artist" grants the person immunity to all the laws that "might restrict their freedom of expression".
Let me continue with an example:
A person, holding a professional video camera and "an official artists card", commits a homicide, while filming the terrible act. Arresting him or disallowing the homicide would "restrict his freedom of expression", thus - he cannot be legally arrested or punished.
Therefore I kindly ask You to vote against the resolution, as long as it stays as vague and potentially dangerous as it is now.
Mr Lyle Puth, the Royal Advisor of King Dwarf IV in Foreign Affairs,
the Kingdom of the Small and Tiny,
the Baltic States.
_Myopia_
02-01-2006, 13:12
Let me continue with an example:
A person, holding a professional video camera and "an official artists card", commits a homicide, while filming the terrible act. Arresting him or disallowing the homicide would "restrict his freedom of expression", thus - he cannot be legally arrested or punished.
Try reading the whole resolution:
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:
...
b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
The real problem with this resolution is that this allows for bans based on any "likely" harm, no matter how minor or indirect.
The Small and Tiny
02-01-2006, 14:12
Pardon me, indeed I did miss that part of the resoulution, which renders the example inapropriate. And, I agree to the problem mentioned by You, as well.
Let me try with another example, now, taking into account the b) subpoint of clause 2.
An artist may freely break law, concerning private / governmental property rights, make his performances in a private area, as long as nothing is harmed.
Also, the crimes can be done against any governmental institution. Pardon my lack of English judicial language skills, but, whereas by definition "no harm must be done to any PERSON", and organizations and institutions are not persons, harm can be done legally by an artist to property of such instances (no member persons, of course).
To continue, self-mutilation in "the name of art" seems to be allowed - "no OTHER person".
Mr Lyle Puth, the Royal Advisor of King Dwarf IV in Foreign Affairs,
the Kingdom of the Small and Tiny,
the Baltic States.
Fonzoland
02-01-2006, 15:46
Pardon me, indeed I did miss that part of the resoulution, which renders the example inapropriate. And, I agree to the problem mentioned by You, as well.
Let me try with another example, now, taking into account the b) subpoint of clause 2.
An artist may freely break law, concerning private / governmental property rights, make his performances in a private area, as long as nothing is harmed.
Also, the crimes can be done against any governmental institution. Pardon my lack of English judicial language skills, but, whereas by definition "no harm must be done to any PERSON", and organizations and institutions are not persons, harm can be done legally by an artist to property of such instances (no member persons, of course).
To continue, self-mutilation in "the name of art" seems to be allowed - "no OTHER person".
Read the proposal, please. There are three subclauses in 2, clearly labelled a, b, and c. You will find that each of those has a refreshingly new effect.
And I don't give a damn about selfmutilation.
Tzorsland
02-01-2006, 16:17
I'm confused. How in the universe did this resolution get to the floor? Were all the moderators on extended vacation? This is from the start a House of Cards violation!
House of Cards
"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."
This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.
Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.
A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)
This resolution should be stricken from condiseration; the proposer should be flogged - I mean given a warning never to do that again.
Otherwise I like it. (Hmmm, I better check on those regulations on whether or not people who approve such resolutions are also likely to be flogged. Tzorsland abstains until further consultation with my solicitor. (My what? I want a lawyer! :p )
Fonzoland
02-01-2006, 16:39
I'm confused. How in the universe did this resolution get to the floor? Were all the moderators on extended vacation? This is from the start a House of Cards violation!
This resolution should be stricken from condiseration; the proposer should be flogged - I mean given a warning never to do that again.
No. If you read the rule more carefully (emphasis added):
A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones.
This proposal can stand on its own, even if the Bill of Rights is repealled. It merely quotes the Bill of Rights in the preamble, so its existence has no impact on the operative part. Also, quoting something once should not be considered "excessive back referencing." I believe legality was checked prior to submission.
Otherwise I like it. (Hmmm, I better check on those regulations on whether or not people who approve such resolutions are also likely to be flogged. Tzorsland abstains until further consultation with my solicitor. (My what? I want a lawyer! :p )
Thank you, you are not likely to be flogged. Unless you enjoy it.
Nobelshire
02-01-2006, 17:47
Here is the problem that Your Ugly Website has with this legislation:
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,
We are a nation composed of mostly religious people. This legislation, in our opinion, reflects a slanted and anti-religious view of art. It says that 'the primary purpose' of art is 'attaining aesthetic value'. In the view of many if not most of our own citizens, that is not the primary purpose of art. The primary purpose of art is to instill values and to teach. You are not respecting our religious rights in imposing an 'art for art's sake' view of art. For that reason, we cannot endorse this legislation.
I am sure that no sensible person will speak boldly against freedom of expression, after all, it is not politically correct in a secularized world that is heavily influenced by Hollywood.
However, in our view, this legislation is not a harmless plea for artistic freedom. It appears that the real goal of this proposal is to promote values which are not necessarily shared by the majority of people in the world. Most people on this planet are highly religious and most nations are not as 'liberal' as you media elites like to think. What if they don't share your view as to the purpose of art?
While we will be voting "nay" on this resolution, I would like to point out that freedoms which allow you or others to practice a religion are not a garuntee of freedom from that religion in the secular populace.
In fact, most secular thinkers would classify religious works of art (including icons, holy books, and sermons) as being an intellectual contruct. Consider that an artists inspiration is derived from so-called higher powers; the end result is to attain an aesthetic value for the religious public to appreciate, gaining a higher understanding of a faith.
Though religious iconnery may offend myself from time to time, I fully stand by your right display it. I feel that your outcry here is not portent to the loss of religious freedom, but an attempt to gain exemtions and special treatment which clearly go against the freedoms of non-aligned religious or secular populace.
The Eternal Kawaii
02-01-2006, 19:46
Artistic activities should be protected unless they harm other people. That is the purpose of 2.b. Most people who argued against 2.b have taken the destructive approach, either referring to very specific situations, or redefining words beyond their well accepted meaning. It is fair game, but not very interesting. The sort of activities which are actually excluded from the protection are:
- snuff films
- child porn
- direct appeals to violence.
If the esteemed authors of this resolution had intended such a narrow scope in their understanding of harm, why did they not define it as such? As written, Our understanding of this resolution is that "activities excluded from protection" include assaults against the public harmony of Our people. These include such things as:
- Blasphemy
- Vulgarity of language and expression
- Indecent references to sexuality and other inappropriate topics.
All of these constitute harm to the serene mental and spiritual attitudes Our people strive for, and will not be tolerated merely to indulge some artist's egotistical whim.
Fonzoland
02-01-2006, 20:09
If the esteemed authors of this resolution had intended such a narrow scope in their understanding of harm, why did they not define it as such? As written, Our understanding of this resolution is that "activities excluded from protection" include assaults against the public harmony of Our people. These include such things as:
- Blasphemy
- Vulgarity of language and expression
- Indecent references to sexuality and other inappropriate topics.
All of these constitute harm to the serene mental and spiritual attitudes Our people strive for, and will not be tolerated merely to indulge some artist's egotistical whim.
The intention is to give some leeway to governments with respect to implementation. You (your courts of law) can decide, based on circumstances, whether someone was inciting violence or making a joke, and so on. Furthermore, my previous list was meant as examples, I would be unconfortable presenting it as exhaustive. The intention was never to allow unreasonable interpretation of the word.
Two definitions of harm from dictionaries:
harm: Physical or psychological injury or damage.
harm: Loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being.
This is our intention when using the word harm, and it seems well founded. Of course you can redefine harm as including "assaults against the public harmony," I just don't find such a debate very stimulating.
I would suggest that any specific listing of cases would be attacked here as micromanagement (remember the divorce debate), any general statement as a giant loophole, and the absence of 2.b) as protecting "hate speech," or "hate art," whatever you want to call it.
Wyldtree
02-01-2006, 21:27
I'm sorry that you find debate regarding the wording of resolutions to be uninteresting, representative of Fonzoland. The wording of resolutions is very important to their effectiveness and meaning and this one fails in that regard in the opinion of the administration of Wyldtree.
Fonzoland
03-01-2006, 00:13
I'm sorry that you find debate regarding the wording of resolutions to be uninteresting, representative of Fonzoland. The wording of resolutions is very important to their effectiveness and meaning and this one fails in that regard in the opinion of the administration of Wyldtree.
Since you didn't understand my meaning, we are bound to get stuck with semantics. I will try to make it clearer.
I am aware of the importance of wording. I have been petulant and snobbish at poorly worded resolutions in the recent past. What I find uninteresting is redefinition of words to suit one's intentions, or picking on every single undefined term in a proposal. The statement "I redefine 'wage' to mean 'tax'" is not acceptable. (No, I am not accusing participants on this debate of such an extreme, but I have read similar arguments in the past.) Similarly, defining "harm" as whatever the government dislikes is not acceptable. For me, obviously.
This is a very clear debate. A few people oppose the idea of artistic freedoms altogether, for NatSov or religious reasons. Most people seem to agree with the principle of artistic freedom. There are very few swing voters.
However, the most repeated arguments against are "I don't like the way you defined art" or "You should have defined harm more precisely" or "You should have defined likely." I willingly accept that the wording on this resolution has room for improvement. As does every single resolution passed. If the resolution fails, Jey and I would welcome constructive criticism on possible improvements. Still, there was a long and open drafting period, when those suggestions could have been made. So, at this point, the spirit and letter of the law are clear enough, the law is needed, and I will defend it until the end. (OOC: Which is unfortunately just a few more hours for RL reasons.)
Wyldtree
03-01-2006, 00:20
I understand you, but I disagree since mental wellbeing is included within the definition of harm and leads to many interpretations of what harmful art is. I don't think it's a stretch really. As to the drafting period of the resolution... The nation of Wyldtree was just recently founded or I surely would have had recommendations at that time. As it stands I have to vote against this resolution and hope for it to be struck down so a stronger resolution can be made to ensure artistic freedom in UN nations. I appreciate yours and Jey's intent here, but I think the resolution is flawed and Wyldtree's stance on this is not going to change either.
Fonzoland
03-01-2006, 00:44
I understand you, but I disagree since mental wellbeing is included within the definition of harm and leads to many interpretations of what harmful art is. I don't think it's a stretch really. As to the drafting period of the resolution... The nation of Wyldtree was just recently founded or I surely would have had recommendations at that time. As it stands I have to vote against this resolution and hope for it to be struck down so a stronger resolution can be made to ensure artistic freedom in UN nations. I appreciate yours and Jey's intent here, but I think the resolution is flawed and Wyldtree's stance on this is not going to change either.
To be clear, saying we had a long drafting stage was not a dig at those who didn't participate. I just argue that Jey made all reasonable efforts to improve the wording of the resolution, and demonstrated great flexibility and openness; I became a coauthor myself during that process. This text was not rushed to the floor, and as such I have a clear conscience on eventual shortcomings.
Anyway, I do understand you will not change your stance. *points to sig* ;)
Lacmhacarh
03-01-2006, 14:42
I don't know if this occurred to anyone (as I haven't bothered reading the entire thread) but art is a medium (actually, several media) already protected by Article II of Resolution #26, "The Universal Bill of Rights". So your proposal is pretty much redundant legislation.
I don't know if this occurred to anyone (as I haven't bothered reading the entire thread) but art is a medium (actually, several media) already protected by Article II of Resolution #26, "The Universal Bill of Rights". So your proposal is pretty much redundant legislation.
I don't know if this occurred to you, but the Universal Bill of Rights only protects free speech through the media. So, as arts are not primarily transmitted through the media and that splashing blue paint on a canvas is not speech, UNBoR does not cover Artistic Freedom.
Tzorsland
03-01-2006, 15:21
One thing that troubles me is that by concentrating only on "people" it might be possible for art to significantly harm other things (national animals, protected reserves) without directly harming the people. Not that I think any real artist would want to destroy any nations preserves as nature itself is the highest form of art, but I worry that the Uranium mining industry might suddenly call themselves "artists."
I'm still voting YEA, however.
Fonzoland
03-01-2006, 15:50
One thing that troubles me is that by concentrating only on "people" it might be possible for art to significantly harm other things (national animals, protected reserves) without directly harming the people. Not that I think any real artist would want to destroy any nations preserves as nature itself is the highest form of art, but I worry that the Uranium mining industry might suddenly call themselves "artists."
I'm still voting YEA, however.
That is yet another one of those redefinitions that I previously called uninteresting. Here, we did define art and artist, but even if we didn't, there are some basic dictionary definitions that have to be taken for granted. Unless you can show that the common sense interpretation of art (or in this case, the mentioned "aesthetic value") includes mining, that is not possible.
You might as well redefine words like "right" or "interference," as a much more effective method of changing the meaning of the proposal. And to make every single piece of written law void.
OOC: An interesting tangent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein)
Omigodtheykilledkenny
03-01-2006, 16:06
I don't know if this occurred to you, but the Universal Bill of Rights only protects free speech through the media. So, as arts are not primarily transmitted through the media and that splashing blue paint on a canvas is not speech, UNBoR does not cover Artistic Freedom.UBoR does not need to be interpreted the way you want it to be; in fact, with the first and second clause this resolution you are forcing us all to accept a false interpretation of UBoR and scuttle total artistic freedom for freedom only absent "likely harm" as determined by the government. This "human rights" legislation actually revokes rights rather than grants them.
Fonzoland
03-01-2006, 16:25
UBoR does not need to be interpreted the way you want it to be; in fact, with the first and second clause this resolution you are forcing us all to accept a false interpretation of UBoR and scuttle total artistic freedom for freedom only absent "likely harm" as determined by the government. This "human rights" legislation actually revokes rights rather than grants them.
Wrong on two counts:
Fact #1. This law does not revoke rights. It is not possible to revoke previous guarantees (game mechanics), and this resolution does not say anything about what governments can/cannot do in case clause 2 does not hold. If a form of art is based on speech or the media, then the Bill of Rights is still in effect, even if clause 2 doesn't hold. If a form of art is not based on speech or the media, then artists are only guaranteed protection if clause 2 holds, otherwise it is down to NatSov whether this passes or not. I don't know how to explain this better, but you seem to stubbornly ignore my arguments.
Fact #2. There is a difference between definite and indefinite forms. "a car" does not mean the same as "the car." "Cars" does not mean the same as "the cars." "Media" does not mean the same as "the media." I made an argument on these lines some time ago. You didn't reply.
I believe you are using a convenient reinterpretation of the UBoR to disguise your true intentions: a crusade against all sort of Human Rights legislation.
Benevolent Man
03-01-2006, 17:16
This is yet another resolution that will soon pass and then be repealed. It defines a controlling structure on Nations that will make nations do what they are not designed to include. If my nation bans nudity in public, but some other Nation call a nude sculpture art and force protection for criminal activity.
UN resolutions should be about international issues and interaction not making the world your personal Nation.
Vote Yea to the soon-to-be repeal of this waste-of-space resolution.
Fonzoland
03-01-2006, 17:27
This is yet another resolution that will soon pass and then be repealed. It defines a controlling structure on Nations that will make nations do what they are not designed to include. If my nation bans nudity in public, but some other Nation call a nude sculpture art and force protection for criminal activity.
UN resolutions should be about international issues and interaction not making the world your personal Nation.
Vote Yea to the soon-to-be repeal of this waste-of-space resolution.
Thank you for your support and confidence in the outcome of the vote.
That is a valid objection - in fact, the aim of this resolution is exactly to forbid nations from censoring art in the way you would like to. That is why we call it Artistic Freedom. Our view is that creating nude sculptures, among other things, should not be criminal offenses.
James_xenoland
03-01-2006, 17:50
The nation of James xenoland must say nay to this once again.
We view this issue as a waste of this UN's time and do not agree with the issue it self.
UBoR does not need to be interpreted the way you want it to be; in fact, with the first and second clause this resolution you are forcing us all to accept a false interpretation of UBoR and scuttle total artistic freedom for freedom only absent "likely harm" as determined by the government. This "human rights" legislation actually revokes rights rather than grants them.
The article "the" constitutes selectivity. "The dog" does not equal "all dogs". "The dog" is referring to one specific dog. As such "the media" is referring to one specific medium whose common definition (the definition of "the media", that is) is that of what you provided not too long ago -- TV, radio, newspapers, ads, etc.
So, I'd like you to tell me how you can interpret that free speech through one specific medium covers freedom of expression of artists in all media. For that is all im trying to "force you to accept" - free speech in one medium =/= free expression of artists in all media.
St Edmund
03-01-2006, 19:17
UN resolutions should be about international issues and interaction not making the world your personal Nation.
I agree.
Have you considered joining the 'National Sovereignty Organization'?
Basic information at _
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/National_Sovereignty_Organization
Forum at _
http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php
Palentine UN Office
03-01-2006, 19:25
The Palentine wishes to announce our dissapproval with this legislation. WE oppose it on the grounds of "once again is this something an extra governmental body needs to be involved." On this account I say no. There has been no call of artists being attacked ,or having thier rights violated. This is an attempt to butt into the affairs of soverign nations, and create more bureaucracy and red tape. I'm sorry,but I prefer smaller, efficient and steamlined governments. Whats next...Mandatory funding for the arts? How about official government artists?
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio "The Philistine" Sulla
P.S. Now yunz must excuse me, Me and my Deputy Ambassador Texas Jack Funk are going out and pantsing an artist... before its made illegal an'at.:D
Optischer
03-01-2006, 20:25
Art has no effet upon optischer except minor effects upon which other states may benefit. We've voted for.
Oh, and happy new year, I'm back
I do not believe that censorship is the way to go, in fact, I feel quite the opposite, I feel that governments should in fact commission artists, this may encourage cultural developement and help artists get paid. By all means we should be helping our artists. They may create whatever they like whenever they like, but the artists who stand out should be hired to take on assignments. This will promote culture and the economy (slightly).
Nobelshire
03-01-2006, 21:04
The Palentine wishes to announce our dissapproval with this legislation. WE oppose it on the grounds of "once again is this something an extra governmental body needs to be involved." On this account I say no. There has been no call of artists being attacked ,or having thier rights violated. This is an attempt to butt into the affairs of soverign nations, and create more bureaucracy and red tape. I'm sorry,but I prefer smaller, efficient and steamlined governments. Whats next...Mandatory funding for the arts? How about official government artists?
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio "The Philistine" Sulla
P.S. Now yunz must excuse me, Me and my Deputy Ambassador Texas Jack Funk are going out and pantsing an artist... before its made illegal an'at.:D
Indeed. I feel that a resolution of this sort is forcing conformity of nations on the basis of something that is defined (in the resolution) as purely aesthetic. If this were to be included in a wider definition of free speech, I would certainly be more interested, however, these less broad topics should be handled by individual nations themselves.
Artistry is only so by manner of perception, and the popular morality/point of view of a nation my radically differ from another. I think the goal of the NSUN is to breed a culture of harmony, not to conform every nation to a common set of beliefs.
By doing so, we loose the cultural idenity of a Nation. Without this core difference, the culture of the NSUN will stagnate, reversing the hard work that has gotten us to this point.
There has been no call of artists being attacked ,or having thier rights violated.
Your not qualified to make that assessment. Who knows whats going on in other nations? Even if it did happen, do you really think the governments of the alleged nations would report that they are oppressing artists?
Whats next...Mandatory funding for the arts?
Not at all. All were are doing with regard to funds is encouraging the promotion of the arts; not in any way forcing any nation to expel any penny to any artists at any given moment.
How about official government artists?
How about not?
By doing so, we loose the cultural idenity of a Nation. Without this core difference, the culture of the NSUN will stagnate, reversing the hard work that has gotten us to this point.
Please explain yourself. To my knowledge, this resolution does nothing more then to extend to artists the same freedom of expression that you so dearly hold true in your free speech. Now, the only way that this resolution can make you "loose the cultural identity of [your] nation" is if your nation's culture involves the oppression and censorship of artists. If this is the case, I think you may have more important issues to deal with then a debate over a resolution that increases human freedom.
Fonzoland
03-01-2006, 23:58
Indeed. I feel that a resolution of this sort is forcing conformity of nations on the basis of something that is defined (in the resolution) as purely aesthetic. If this were to be included in a wider definition of free speech, I would certainly be more interested, however, these less broad topics should be handled by individual nations themselves.
Artistry is only so by manner of perception, and the popular morality/point of view of a nation my radically differ from another. I think the goal of the NSUN is to breed a culture of harmony, not to conform every nation to a common set of beliefs.
You see, I think the exact opposite. I think the government who is censoring their citizens is the one "forcing conformity" and promoting "a common set of beliefs." This resolution, if anything, protects non-conformists and diversity of beliefs. Because beliefs are held by individuals, NOT by nations.
By doing so, we loose the cultural idenity of a Nation. Without this core difference, the culture of the NSUN will stagnate, reversing the hard work that has gotten us to this point.
And I thought I had heard everything in this debate. A proposal restricting censorship is accused of destroying cultural identity and stagnating culture. As opposed to the censors themselves, who are the great promoters of culture.
I sincerely congratulate you for your creativity.
Nobelshire
04-01-2006, 00:56
And I thought I had heard everything in this debate. A proposal restricting censorship is accused of destroying cultural identity and stagnating culture. As opposed to the censors themselves, who are the great promoters of culture.
I sincerely congratulate you for your creativity.
Perhaps I was not clear in my disagreement. I am speaking specifically to Article 2, Part B of the proposed resolution:
b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
The wording in this section is weak, and can be used by those who are particularly opposed to artistic freedom. By not establishing a clear definition of the word "harmed", claims under this clause could be made that make censorship easy.
Art, in my opinion, is very important. Arguably, some art has brought about important cultural and political change which I feel is vital to the progression of any nation or culture. Often, this art is offensive to at least a minority that believes the contrary.
Take, for example, religious icons. They are, by this definition, a work of art, appreciated by those of a particular faith. As an atheist, I am offended by this art, and in so harmed (at least by the classic definition). The same could be said of a religious person taking offense to atheist books or artwork. In both instances, this clause could be taken advantage of.
Easily manipulated clauses such as Article 2, Part B open the door to those would-be opponents to free speech. I may hate what you have said - and maybe be a little wounded by it - but I will die for your right to say it.
Fonzoland
04-01-2006, 01:25
The wording in this section is weak, and can be used by those who are particularly opposed to artistic freedom. By not establishing a clear definition of the word "harmed", claims under this clause could be made that make censorship easy.
Art, in my opinion, is very important. Arguably, some art has brought about important cultural and political change which I feel is vital to the progression of any nation or culture. Often, this art is offensive to at least a minority that believes the contrary.
Take, for example, religious icons. They are, by this definition, a work of art, appreciated by those of a particular faith. As an atheist, I am offended by this art, and in so harmed (at least by the classic definition). The same could be said of a religious person taking offense to atheist books or artwork. In both instances, this clause could be taken advantage of.
Easily manipulated clauses such as Article 2, Part B open the door to those would-be opponents to free speech. I may hate what you have said - and maybe be a little wounded by it - but I will die for your right to say it.
What you call manipulation of 2.b, I call an abusive and wrong interpretation. I have stated previously in this thread that I disagree with what you call the "classic definition" of the word harm. I am tired of arguing semantics here: the word has a primary and clear meaning in my view, which I presented with the help of dictionaries.
The second point, which I also presented earlier, is that passing this resolution will NOT give any more rights to governments than not passing it. Should it fail, nobody would be protected, whether within the scope of clause 2 or not.
Gruenberg
04-01-2006, 01:36
What you call manipulation of 2.b, I call an abusive and wrong interpretation. I have stated previously in this thread that I disagree with what you call the "classic definition" of the word harm. I am tired of arguing semantics here: the word has a primary and clear meaning in my view, which I presented with the help of dictionaries.
The second point, which I also presented earlier, is that passing this resolution will NOT give any more rights to governments than not passing it. Should it fail, nobody would be protected, whether within the scope of clause 2 or not.
OOC
Honestly I don't see it as wank, at all, to infer 'harm' extends to moral, emotional, or economic damage. And anyway, if you have these wonderful definitions, why not use them? The proposal isn't that long. If you really, truly believe it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that 'harm' is excessively vague, then fine, I'll drop it, and ICly change my vote to against. But I just don't see it, at all, as a stretch, particularly given you have demonstrated you had sounder definitions, and chose not to include them.
Nobelshire
04-01-2006, 02:17
What you call manipulation of 2.b, I call an abusive and wrong interpretation. I have stated previously in this thread that I disagree with what you call the "classic definition" of the word harm. I am tired of arguing semantics here: the word has a primary and clear meaning in my view, which I presented with the help of dictionaries.
The second point, which I also presented earlier, is that passing this resolution will NOT give any more rights to governments than not passing it. Should it fail, nobody would be protected, whether within the scope of clause 2 or not.
I don't like to argue semantics either, but those who would challenge something under this clause usually love to argue semantics. I just want to avoid future headaches. I am simply in favor of either removing or revising the clause, that is all.
Fonzoland
04-01-2006, 02:17
Honestly I don't see it as wank, at all, to infer 'harm' extends to moral, emotional, or economic damage. And anyway, if you have these wonderful definitions, why not use them? The proposal isn't that long. If you really, truly believe it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that 'harm' is excessively vague, then fine, I'll drop it, and ICly change my vote to against. But I just don't see it, at all, as a stretch, particularly given you have demonstrated you had sounder definitions, and chose not to include them.
OOC:
I did not choose it purposefully. When drafting, I had one meaning in mind, and I did not believe it could reasonably be interpreted in other ways. I don't remember the objection showing up during the drafting stages (though I may be wrong), and when it showed up in the debate stage, I checked the dictionaries to be sure. These seem to support my view of the stricter meaning of the word.
Possibly more extensive dictionaries would include more figurative meanings. Therefore, I wouldn't call it wank. If I was writing now, I would welcome suggestions on how to tighten the clause. But I still think that twisting the letter of the law against its spirit, by generalising words beyond their intended meaning, is not the most interesting argument, and is something that would typically be rejected in RL contexts.
As I stated before:
I willingly accept that the wording on this resolution has room for improvement. As does every single resolution passed. If the resolution fails, Jey and I would welcome constructive criticism on possible improvements. Still, there was a long and open drafting period, when those suggestions could have been made. So, at this point, the spirit and letter of the law are clear enough, the law is needed, and I will defend it until the end.
Finally, I would be more confortable if you voted against. You have IC positions that would move you against such legislation, and a vote FOR just because it does nothing is a bit insulting. ;)
EDIT: Nobelshire, I hope this answers your post as well.
1. This resolution makes no judgement on whether art should be copyrighted or not. It just voids its protections in case copyright (or other property right) is infringed upon.
Here here. My thoughts exactly.
Commustan
04-01-2006, 02:37
I find no reason harm cannot be interpretted as child porn, or porn without consent of the person portrtayed, etc.
I also fail to have seen any clause in the "Universal Bill of Rights" or "Freedom of
Conscience" that specifically covers art.
I vote Faor this resolution
I want to reiterate the importance of the definition of "art." This proposal limits protected "art" to be something attempting to attain aesthetic value. Again, this means if a government doesn't agree with it, all the government has to do is make the case that it's not pretty enough.
For example, Michelangelo's David would be something I'd push to have banned... I honestly don't want any "art" to have a man's genitals hovering at my eye-level. I think it's disgusting. There are many that would disagree, and claim that this piece is art.
The case could be made that the piece of work need only have the intent of being pretty. In that case, the government in question could easily argue that the intent (which is not so clear) was, in fact, to subvert the social standards, and to undermine the very values on which that nation was founded.
Oppressiontonville
04-01-2006, 05:01
I want to reiterate the importance of the definition of "art." This proposal limits protected "art" to be something attempting to attain aesthetic value. Again, this means if a government doesn't agree with it, all the government has to do is make the case that it's not pretty enough.
For example, Michelangelo's David would be something I'd push to have banned... I honestly don't want any "art" to have a man's genitals hovering at my eye-level. I think it's disgusting. There are many that would disagree, and claim that this piece is art.
The case could be made that the piece of work need only have the intent of being pretty. In that case, the government in question could easily argue that the intent (which is not so clear) was, in fact, to subvert the social standards, and to undermine the very values on which that nation was founded.
Hear hear.
Ascetic Order
04-01-2006, 11:04
Fellow members,
The world is a chaotic place. There are many places where there is nothing but lawlessness, where people are governed only by anarchy.
The United Nations is a beacon of civilization, where laws govern and control the actions of the people. Barbarism is held at bay by the strength of order. It is the will of the people, the will of the leaders, that helps to maintain this order. Without the United Nations standing as a barrier between ourselves and the sovereign nations beyond, we would find our people descending into savagery.
However, we find that order being challenged today, assaulted by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it. I speak, of course, of the Artistic Freedom resolution currently up for debate. If this resolution is allowed to pass, we risk catastrophe. Freedom allows chaos to enter the system. Freedom threatens the order. And now, when we have already been almost overly generous in the amount of freedom we grant our people, we are dispensing even more. More freedom, allowing the citizens to do more and more without proper government control in place.
Where will we draw the line? When murder is legalized? When the people are allowed to cavort through the streets, a hypodermic syringe filled with heroin in one hand, an AK-47 in the other? Naked debauchery not seen since the days of Caligula?
No, I say, and no again. We must put a stop to this. Not later, when things have gotten out of hand, but now. We must stop the gradual erosion of order now. If we allow this resolution to pass, there is no telling where civilization will end up. Not only must we stop this resolution from passing, but we must begin the process of rolling back some of the earlier resolutions that have already been passed.
I implore you, do not allow us to fall from grace. Let us remain a beacon, a light to shine the way into the future.
Do not extinguish the guiding light of order.
Thank you,
The Austere of The Dominion of Ascetic Order
Nobelshire
04-01-2006, 14:10
Fellow members,
...Freedom allows chaos to enter the system. Freedom threatens the order. And now, when we have already been almost overly generous in the amount of freedom we grant our people, we are dispensing even more. More freedom, allowing the citizens to do more and more without proper government control in place....
...When the people are allowed to cavort through the streets, a hypodermic syringe filled with heroin in one hand, an AK-47 in the other? Naked debauchery not seen since the days of Caligula...
Okay, I'm a dictator and all, but words like this are just frightening. The thought of closing loopholes seems almost insignificant now...
I am against this proposal because of section 2b as well.
b) ENSURE that no other person is harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
How in the world are we supposed to know if someone is likely to be indirectly harmed by a work of art? What if a kid views the painting and then goes and shoots people? What if people are killed over the right to own such a painting? What if a spy novel contains information about building explosives and someone goes and blows up someones car? I think that the resolution is 'okay' except that this particular line doesn't really belong, how in the world would you prove or disprove that the 'work' of art directly or indirectly led to someone being harmed? What if someone creates a beautiful scultpure with sharp edges and someone cuts themselves on it while moving it to another gallery? Shall we have warning labels on art now? Like the 'do not use your hairdryer in the tub' warning stickers? I think that because of Human Stupidity ( and gullibility, and other things) saying you have freedom to create any artwork except that which can directly or indirectly harm people, is basically giving artists the freedom to do nothing at all. Even a well meaning childrens book could fall off a shelf and give someone a concussion, right?
I see other objections to this clause and suggested remedies, I would support this resolution 100% if not for 2b -- simply because leaving section 2b in place gives these artists absolutely no freedom. I could paint a picture of a flower and someone somewhere could find it harmful and have it banned. Remove or rewrite this clause and I think quite a few people will be swayed.
On another note, I think the word 'media' is sufficient to cover artwork, but if not, that the original resolution simply be re-worded to include artists and that would solve the issue rather than add a second piece of shaky legislation.
St Edmund
04-01-2006, 14:29
On another note, I think the word 'media' is sufficient to cover artwork, but if not, that the original resolution simply be re-worded to include artists and that would solve the issue rather than add a second piece of shaky legislation.
Unfortunately the rules forbid amending past resolutions, so that any changes desired have to be made either by repealing & subsequently replacing them or (as in this case) by passing additional ones.
Gruenberg
04-01-2006, 15:05
OOC
I did not choose it purposefully. When drafting, I had one meaning in mind, and I did not believe it could reasonably be interpreted in other ways. I don't remember the objection showing up during the drafting stages (though I may be wrong), and when it showed up in the debate stage, I checked the dictionaries to be sure. These seem to support my view of the stricter meaning of the word.
No, I should have mentioned it during drafting; sorry about that. I think I just didn't really notice then, I would have done.
Possibly more extensive dictionaries would include more figurative meanings. Therefore, I wouldn't call it wank. If I was writing now, I would welcome suggestions on how to tighten the clause. But I still think that twisting the letter of the law against its spirit, by generalising words beyond their intended meaning, is not the most interesting argument, and is something that would typically be rejected in RL contexts.
Most RL international law is UN-based. The UN is a global alliance. Bear in mind, they can't technically go to war against each other. The NSUN is a game function, not an alliance. I do think some of the wanking that goes on is unrealistic. But, I genuinely don't think someone thinking 'harm' is pretty general is extravagant, by any means. DLE used to define citizens as 'those deserving of rights'. Her empire, I believe, had few citizens. That, to me, is ridiculous. Accepting that people will of course suppress art in the name of preventing 'moral harm' is not. I restate my objection to the assumption that just because many of us interpreted 'harm' differently to you, we are wrong. You write the proposal: we read it. Implementation is our prerogative.
You made a mistake. You were wrong. You have, by doing this, allowed nations - like Gruenberg - greater licence to persecute artists than we had before. OOCly, that, in the words of the anti-uranium guy, really sticks in my craw. IC, that's fine. Nonetheless, I appreciate it's annoying to have me do this. But, absolutely seriously, I will be interpreting harm in my view, and not yours: that's my right, and I don't think it's a right I'm abusing. Nonetheless,
IC: After further consideration, The Buxom Yet Goatly Wenches of Gruenberg change their vote to against.
Fonzoland
04-01-2006, 15:29
Along with some devastating fallacies, we have seen the true face of the leaders this proposal is restraining. I will quote them as a reason to vote FOR.
For example, Michelangelo's David would be something I'd push to have banned... I honestly don't want any "art" to have a man's genitals hovering at my eye-level. I think it's disgusting. There are many that would disagree, and claim that this piece is art.
However, we find that order being challenged today, assaulted by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it. I speak, of course, of the Artistic Freedom resolution currently up for debate. If this resolution is allowed to pass, we risk catastrophe. Freedom allows chaos to enter the system. Freedom threatens the order. And now, when we have already been almost overly generous in the amount of freedom we grant our people, we are dispensing even more. More freedom, allowing the citizens to do more and more without proper government control in place.
OOC:
You made a mistake. You were wrong. You have, by doing this, allowed nations - like Gruenberg - greater licence to persecute artists than we had before. OOCly, that, in the words of the anti-uranium guy, really sticks in my craw. IC, that's fine. Nonetheless, I appreciate it's annoying to have me do this. But, absolutely seriously, I will be interpreting harm in my view, and not yours: that's my right, and I don't think it's a right I'm abusing.
I do not think my interpretation of the word is wrong. Harm is physical or psychological damage to an individual; I accept inclusion of severe emotional distress could be an unintended consequence. I still believe moral, economic, and public harmony meanings are figurative and, as such, abusive in the context of the legal use of the word.
I do think I should have made it tighter, to keep the debate on more relevant issues, so in that sense I did make a mistake. But there is nothing in the resolution giving greater freedom to persecute.
Gruenberg
04-01-2006, 15:32
OOC
I do not think my interpretation of the word is wrong. Harm is physical or psychological damage to an individual; I accept inclusion of severe emotional distress could be an unintended consequence. I still believe moral, economic, and public harmony meanings are figurative and, as such, abusive in the context of the legal use of the word.
I do think I should have made it tighter, to keep the debate on more relevant issues, so in that sense I did make a mistake. But there is nothing in the resolution giving greater freedom to persecute.
And I don't think my interpretation of the word is wrong! I'm not forcing you to accept mine; I don't want to be forced to accept yours. I'll stop with this now.
Nobelshire
04-01-2006, 15:39
OOC:
Possibly more extensive dictionaries would include more figurative meanings. Therefore, I wouldn't call it wank. If I was writing now, I would welcome suggestions on how to tighten the clause. But I still think that twisting the letter of the law against its spirit, by generalising words beyond their intended meaning, is not the most interesting argument, and is something that would typically be rejected in RL contexts.
EDIT: Nobelshire, I hope this answers your post as well.
OOC:
It does, thanks.
Had my nation been a NSUN member during the drafting, I certainly would have included these arguments there - but I was not - so I do them here, not to be an ass, but if I was a world leader, that's probably what I would do. Of course, in real life, I doubt the UN would allow a vote from newly joined nation on a resolution drafted before the nation joined.
Liberal Britain
04-01-2006, 17:37
I may be deviating from an already deviant topic, and I highly doubt that my opinion will be noticed, but; this proposal is completely pointless, the person who created it had stupidity to come to the conclusion that the arts aren't included in the 'media'; the media encompasses any non-verbal form of communication, such as music, art, or literature.
Cluichstan
04-01-2006, 18:16
Um..."stupidity"? Can we please have some sense of decorum and be a bit more diplomatic in our language?
Nobelshire
04-01-2006, 18:53
I may be deviating from an already deviant topic, and I highly doubt that my opinion will be noticed, but; this proposal is completely pointless, the person who created it had stupidity to come to the conclusion that the arts aren't included in the 'media'; the media encompasses any non-verbal form of communication, such as music, art, or literature.
Scroll back a few pages, the definitions of "media" has already been discussed, as well as how previous resolutions do not pinpoint the arts specifically.
And I agree, it is unbecomming of a UN representative to digress to name calling.
Along with some devastating fallacies, we have seen the true face of the leaders this proposal is restraining. I will quote them as a reason to vote FOR.
OOC:
I do not think my interpretation of the word is wrong. Harm is physical or psychological damage to an individual; I accept inclusion of severe emotional distress could be an unintended consequence. I still believe moral, economic, and public harmony meanings are figurative and, as such, abusive in the context of the legal use of the word.
I do think I should have made it tighter, to keep the debate on more relevant issues, so in that sense I did make a mistake. But there is nothing in the resolution giving greater freedom to persecute.
I'm confused. Why was I quoted? You failed to address my statement. Michelangelo's David is subversive, and attempts to pass softcore pornography as art. It is harmful to the youth of my nation, and of the world!
I don't believe a word of that, but your resolution makes it possible for me to act on it.
Love and esterel
05-01-2006, 02:16
LAE support this proposition, and would like to thanks the authors for all the improvements since the very 1st draft
Gruenberg
05-01-2006, 02:19
LAE support this proposition, and would like to thanks the authors for all the improvements since the very 1st draft
OOC: Welcome back, L&E.
Love and esterel
05-01-2006, 02:35
OOC: Welcome back, L&E.
Thanks my holidays are over:(
Greater Montreal
05-01-2006, 05:02
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,
I suggest voting against the resolution, in its current wording it does not protect literature or art whose purpose is to evoke emotion and shock, rather than aesthetic pleasure.
I suggest voting against the resolution, in its current wording it does not protect literature or art whose purpose is to evoke emotion and shock, rather than aesthetic pleasure.
I suggest looking up aesthetic. While the last thing we want is another definition war, you may come to find that aesthetic is a much less exclusive value then you may think.
Sensual Goddess
05-01-2006, 09:54
I take issue with #2.
I wouldn't want "anyone" to be able to distribute my art. I would want to be in total control of it.
Bane Maul
05-01-2006, 11:53
Let us consider clause 2b: In it we see an intent, which is a noble one on the part of the authors, to ensure that no intentionally inflammatory or works that encourage violence are condoned within this resolution. However, noble as their intentions may be, Compadria opposes this clause, as we feel it leaves too many loopholes to continue the repression of artists and the witholding of legitimate artistic freedoms.
Firstly we must remember that no right "not to be offended" exists, so that works which may appear or are, racist, defamatory, etc, should be allowed to be presented as legitimate artworks. If we start saying what constitutes harmful or harming, we risk opening up a slew of unwanted possibilities. For instance, what if the artwork used in an anti-racism campaign has to be withdrawn because a far-right group labels it "harmful" and "inciting hatred of them which may lead to them being harmed". It is a possibility one must concede. Furthermore, what would happen if a legitimate criticism of government was suppressed on the grounds that it would be "harmful to state security". I feel there exists too much possibility for disaster.
We suggest that this clause be dropped and replaced with:
b) REFRAIN when appropriate, from using their artwork as an inflammatory factor to exacerbate tensions, be they racial, political, etc, where there exists the strong possibility that violence will follow.
which will be complemented by a clause:
REQUIRES state and local authorities to not unduly or consistantly pressurise an artist into self-censorship, nor to pass laws to that effect, where the freedoms of expression for an artist, shall be compromised by societal pressures which may lead to him self-censoring.
These are somewhat clunky, but they are our suggestions and we hope to perhaps discuss them more in depth.
May the blessings of our otters be upon you.
Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
While I certainly applaud the efforts of my comrade, I believe that the resolution should pass as worded. Subversive artists who pose a threat to the people should not be allowed to create their "work" unimpeded. The state should have every right to intervene on behalf of the people whom we represent in cases where artists may take their freedoms beyond the bounds allowed by society.
Ascetic Order
05-01-2006, 12:17
Art, by definition, has three main functions in any given society.
It is a way to encapsulate that culture on canvas, stone, or on the page. The statues from Greece depicted ancient heroes from their myths. Paintings from Medieval Europe captured the theological beliefs of that time. Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath described the plight of the average Midwestern farmer during the Great Depression. Obviously this function of art has been rendered redundant and unnecessary by the invention of superb information storage devices. Any textbook covering 14th century Europe will do a far better job recording the religious beliefs of that time than any rendering of Hell by Bosch.
Next, art can be used to capture a specific emotion, to then elicit this same emotion in the viewer. This uncontrolled manipulation of the emotional states of others is foolhardy and dangerous. Especially since it is left in the hands of artists, individuals who have a tendency to be unstable themselves. Paintings like Goya’s “The Third of May”, a disgusting attempt to rouse sympathy for revolutionaries, is most unwelcome.
And this brings us to the final function of art, to spread a message. This is also dangerous. Works that contain messages of revolution, defiance, challenging authority, should be burned, not celebrated.
This is not to say that art does not have a place in the modern society. Art should be carefully screened for positive, uplifting messages. Messages that encourage support for the state, hard work and unshakable loyalty. Trained psychologists could do much to help produce art that better elicits these kind of responses and then the state may commission works that do just that.
Artists are dangerous subversives. They should be under state control or imprisoned, not placed on a pedestal and admired.
The delegate from Jocabia cannot support this proposal. I know it's been mentioned but 2b is far too broad and almost anything could be considered by a member nation to consititute harm. This means that in the broadest and most outragous sense this resolution could enable the distribution of pornography to minors and prevent political satire.
In the event of passage, the delegate from Jocabia intends to begin the repeal process immediately.
I'm confused. Why was I quoted? You failed to address my statement. Michelangelo's David is subversive, and attempts to pass softcore pornography as art. It is harmful to the youth of my nation, and of the world!
I don't believe a word of that, but your resolution makes it possible for me to act on it.
Not just gives you freedom but gives you international support. It also supports the opposite extreme where pornography could be considered art and thus have unlimited distribution creating a debate on what constitutes harm.
I suggest looking up aesthetic. While the last thing we want is another definition war, you may come to find that aesthetic is a much less exclusive value then you may think.
I've already done so, Jey. If something has aesthetic value, as stated in your resolution, it is:
A) Beautiful
B) Concerning beautiful things
C) In good taste
That's pretty damned exclusive to me. If we define art only as something that seeks to attain aesthetic value, there goes most of the artistic world.
To be honest, I've got nothing to say on section 2b. I haven't read it yet. I got to the definition of "art," and didn't need to read more.
I take issue with #2.
I wouldn't want "anyone" to be able to distribute my art. I would want to be in total control of it.
"...provided they:
RESPECT laws on property rights, including copyrights..."
I've already done so, Jey. If something has aesthetic value, as stated in your resolution, it is:
A) Beautiful
B) Concerning beautiful things
C) In good taste
That's pretty damned exclusive to me. If we define art only as something that seeks to attain aesthetic value, there goes most of the artistic world.
To be honest, I've got nothing to say on section 2b. I haven't read it yet. I got to the definition of "art," and didn't need to read more.
What do you know... we agree again.
Cluichstan
05-01-2006, 23:08
The people of Cluichstan advise the esteemed representative of Bresnia to be afraid...be very afraid...
Palentine UN Office
05-01-2006, 23:33
Sen. Horatio Sulla stands up and moves to the podium. He is wearing a red and white striped jacket and pants, a red bow tie, two toned tap shoes, and a straw porkpie hat. He is holding a cane in one hand, and a glass of a carmel colored liquid with ice in the other.
"Esteemed delegates I am filled with deep sadness that this bit of bureaucratic nonsense passed. However hope spings eternal, and in the spirit of that hope I rejoice in the future repeal of this legislation. In the spirit of "art" I shall now entertain you with fsome art as I leave to see about and further "tree resolutions" that need repealed.:D I shall now tap dance to Hello my Baby! while gargelling this fine Yeldan Whiskey(TM). Hit it boys!"
*Takes a swig of said drink, and tap dances out of the hall while Hello My Baby is played over loudspeakers.*:p
Esteemed delegates of Bresnia and Gruenburg, in the interest of international cooperation would you like to work with the delegate from Jocabia to repeal this resolution in favor of creating a more responsible bit of legislation on the arts. It is clear that the definition of art, the use of the word, harm, and who the art may be distributed to and by are to vague to be of use.
The people of Cluichstan advise the esteemed representative of Bresnia to be afraid...be very afraid...
I fear your statements have caused widespread diarrhea and flooding in all major cities of Jocabia. Now that is a cleanup effort that no one wants to participate in.
Gruenberg
06-01-2006, 00:12
Jocabia, TGed.
Congrats to Jey and Fonzoland.
[NS]The-Republic
06-01-2006, 00:27
Well done, Jey and Fonzo. Mill would be proud.
Cluichstan
06-01-2006, 13:50
I fear your statements have caused widespread diarrhea and flooding in all major cities of Jocabia. Now that is a cleanup effort that no one wants to participate in.
Well, then, even though this resolution has passed, at least some good came of my remarks.