NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #138: Artistic Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

REAFFIRMING the need for artistic freedom;

DISAPPOINTED that UN Resolution #138, "Artistic Freedom", does not fulfill the intended function;

NOTING that the definition of art as specified is not adequate for the protection of artists and the general public, particularly that many artistic pieces are created with the purpose of being contrary to aesthetics;

SADDENED AND DISTRESSED that the UN would attempt to define art is such a narrow manner, given the variety of cultures in the member nations of the UN;

REGRETTING the lack of clarification of the meaning or allowable boundaries of 'harm', allowing for the abuse by either member nations or the individual artists, such a member nation censoring political satire or a nude sculpture or an artist arguing that a nation is being oppressive in preventing the distribution of pornography to minors;

DECLARING that ambiguous and ineffective legislation threatens the credibility of the UN and discourages more progressive and effective legislation on artistic freedom;

HEREBY

1. REPEALS Resolution #138, “Artistic Freedom”;

2. IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of this resolution with more effective and more clearly defined legislation ensuring artistic freedom.

Co-Authored by Gruenberg

The Ascetic Order will back any resolution that repeals the heinous Artistic Freedom resolution.
You have our support.

Ausserland voted against UN Resolution #138, "Artistic Freedom". We believe that certain portions of the resolution are too vague for the resolution to be truly effective. We will not, however, support its repeal.

As we stated during debate on the resolution, we believe that the subject of artistic freedom is simply too amorphous and difficult to be properly covered by NSUN legislation. However, Resolution #138 does no harm and might have some positive effect. If we were to see a draft of a replacement resolution that we felt was more effective in attaining its goals, we would support a repeal of Resolution #138. Frankly, we have no confidence that that will happen, and thus will not support a repeal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The people of Cluichstan also support a repeal of this resolution for the reasons stated during the debate when it was on the floor.

However, Resolution #138 does no harm and might have some positive effect.

The Artistic Freedom resolution will do more harm than anyone realizes. Artists, whether they are painters or novelists, are dangerous individuals. They are capable of doing great harm to the fabric of our great societies and they must be controlled.
My government finds it appalling that anyone would want to give them more freedom, instead of seeking to restrict them.

The people of Cluichstan repectfully submit that the representative from the Ascetic Order should lay off the narcotics.

The Ascetic Order believes narcotics of any kind also rend the social fabric and are currently working on a way to ban all forms as soon as possible. Nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine will be the first to go since they are most prevalent.
We humbly submit that it is perhaps the respectable representatives of Cluichstan who are indulging in perception altering drugs, seeing as how they are unable to see the very real danger the Artistic Freedom resolution represents.

The people of Cluichstan see the resolution for what it is: primarily a bunch of senseless fluff. However, we are also troubled that it defines "art."

Oh, and we like our mind-altering substances a great deal.

SADDENED AND DISTRESSED that the UN would attempt to define art is such a narrow manner, given the variety of cultures in the member nations of the UN;

REGRETTING the lack of clarification of the meaning or allowable boundaries of 'harm', allowing for the abuse by either member nations or the individual artists, such a member nation censoring political satire or a nude sculpture or an artist arguing that a nation is being oppressive in preventing the distribution of pornography to minors;


DECLARING that ambiguous and ineffective legislation threatens the credibility of the UN and discourages more progressive and effective legislation on artistic freedom;Isn't this a little contradictory? If both ambiguous/ineffective legislation and narrower definitions are bad, then what type of legislation should the UN pursue?

Should the UN provide an exact definition to remove ambiguity? Or should it intentionally allow nationstates and peoples leeway so as not to infringe on their abilities to respond to their individual cultures and situations?

Isn't this a little contradictory? If both ambiguous/ineffective legislation and narrower definitions are bad, then what type of legislation should the UN pursue?

Should the UN provide an exact definition to remove ambiguity? Or should it intentionally allow nationstates and peoples leeway so as not to infringe on their abilities to respond to their individual cultures and situations?

Art should be more broadly defined so as not to exclude certain types of art from the legislation.

Harm should be more clearly defined so as not to be so ripe for abuse.

The terms are specifically referenced in the legislation and the call for action on each term is clear. I believe the answers to your questions can be found in the legislation (with the obvious exception of the last one).

Yes, some leeway for the people and states should be allowed, but the current legislation is so vague that it can actually be used to promote state censorship or in other cases be used for the abuse of the freedom by an artist (as the example of unrestricted pornography distribution illustrates).

Art should be more broadly defined so as not to exclude certain types of art from the legislation.

Harm should be more clearly defined so as not to be so ripe for abuse.

The terms are specifically referenced in the legislation and the call for action on each term is clear. I believe the answers to your questions can be found in the legislation.

I understand and sympathise with the sentiment of the honourable delegate of Jacobia, as I too was uneasy about the wording of clause 2b. Nevertheless, I think that this is cancelled out in the whole by the rest of the resolution, which is excellent. Given that an effective replacement would be unlikely, I therefore express the view that the Republic of Compadria shall oppose this repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I understand and sympathise with the sentiment of the honourable delegate of Jacobia, as I too was uneasy about the wording of clause 2b. Nevertheless, I think that this is cancelled out in the whole by the rest of the resolution, which is excellent. Given that an effective replacement would be unlikely, I therefore express the view that the Republic of Compadria shall oppose this repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The existence of the legislation discourages replacement with better legislation. The definition of art as only being that which is "created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value" places into law a definition of art that excludes the work of many, many artists, specifically work that is created with no consideration of aesthetic value or is directly opposed to aesthetic value.

In conjunction with 2b, this makes the legislation unacceptable, while the delegate from Zion and representative of Jocabia applauds the purpose and direction of the legislation.

I am weary of this issue, but offer my (admittedly passive) support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Imagine this scenario -

Dictator: Did you create this crap for the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value?
Artist: No. I created this work with the primary purpose of telling a story I found in my head, but I did consider the aesthetic value.
Dictator: Is the story true?
Artist: No, I made it up.
Dictator: I see, so not only do you admit that you are not an artist, and I am using the internationally-recognized definition of the term as found UN Resolution #138, but you admit to being a liar. Burn every book in the room, boys!

Art is created with the intent of being aesthetic. It may have a practical use or value and may not be designed with its beauty as a primary attraction, yet it will still be created as an aesthetic representation of whatever its theme or meaning (even lack of it) may be.

As for the scenario, the artist would be protected, since he was using artwork to represent a story he had thought of, thus lending a visual element to an otherwise mental process and imagining, therfore it is indeed aesthetically motivated, even if he thinks otherwise.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Art is created with the intent of being aesthetic. It may have a practical use or value and may not be designed with its beauty as a primary attraction, yet it will still be created as an aesthetic representation of whatever its theme or meaning (even lack of it) may be.

As for the scenario, the artist would be protected, since he was using artwork to represent a story he had thought of, thus lending a visual element to an otherwise mental process and imagining, therfore it is indeed aesthetically motivated, even if he thinks otherwise.

Depends what his story was about. If we judged it to be harmful, he dies.

Art is created with the intent of being aesthetic. It may have a practical use or value and may not be designed with its beauty as a primary attraction, yet it will still be created as an aesthetic representation of whatever its theme or meaning (even lack of it) may be.

As for the scenario, the artist would be protected, since he was using artwork to represent a story he had thought of, thus lending a visual element to an otherwise mental process and imagining, therfore it is indeed aesthetically motivated, even if he thinks otherwise.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It has to have the PRIMARY purpose of aesthetic value. Note the use of the word, primary. If telling the story, not making a visual representation, but simply advancing a story line is the primary purpose, then it would not be considered art. For many artists, the aesthetic effect is secondary. Purpose certainly relates to the intent of the creator.

That didn't take long.

You have my support.

Suggestion of alternative wording -

1a) A “work of art” is any original peice (such as a painting, sculpture, novel, comic, poem, musical piece, dance, et al) intentionally created or arranged and deemed to be a "work of art" by the creator of the piece.

Yes, it's intentionally broad, so as to include all original works conceived of the mind. Yep, an email can be a work of art if I decide. Since art falls under the freedom of expression, I have no problem with making all expression fall under the term "work of art" if the artist so desires. Also, it makes protection under this legislation voluntary.

Admittedly 2b is much trickier. I think it simply is going to have to contain more expicit language. Here is a VERY ROUGH draft. As always comments are welcome.

2b) Protection from harm

i)ENSURE that no other person, is emotionally, physically or psychologically harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
ii)ENSURE the peice does not violate the privacy or other individual rights of a person,
iii) exceptions
a) government officials, political parties, corporations, for-profit and non-profit organizations and businesses, and the government in general are protected from physical harm, but are not extended protection from psychological or emotional harm,
b) government officials have privacy and individual rights protection with the exception of those acts that pertinent to their job,
c)those who intentionally enter the public sphere (to include actors, singers, performers, political activists, et al) are protected from physical harm, but are not extended protection from psychological or emotional harm,
d) those who intentionally enter the public sphere have rights and individual rights protections with the exception of those acts that relate to their actions in the public sphere.
iv)The families of government officials and those who intentionally enter are not covered under this exception unless they are also a government official or among those who intentionally enter the public sphere,

It's an attempt to protect satire of public figures but not forfeit their right to privacy or that of their families.

OOC: This was specifically molded to not protect the efforts of papparazzi, but to protect satire regarding public figures.

No comments are the proposed changes in the replacement legislation?

The people of Cluichstan simply want the resolution repealed. We feel no need for a replacement.

The people of Cluichstan simply want the resolution repealed. We feel no need for a replacement.

Then I won't look for your support on replacement legislation. *licks lips* But I still hope you'll stick around for the debate.

You may count on it, fine sir.

The definition of art as only being that which is "created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value" places into law a definition of art that excludes the work of many, many artists, specifically work that is created with no consideration of aesthetic value or is directly opposed to aesthetic value.
1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
<snip>
The key words being "for the purpose of this resolution". This resolution has no effect on the legal definiation of art.

The people of Ceorana may consider giving support to a repeal if an adequate replacement is presented beforehand.

I'm so glad we coded Repeals.

The Gnomes haven't even finished chisling the Resolution in the Giant Stone Tablets Of UN Law That Never Change Save For When They Do, and already there's a Repeal coming down the line. No wonder they're always so stressed...

I'm so glad we coded Repeals.

The Gnomes haven't even finished chisling the Resolution in the Giant Stone Tablets Of UN Law That Never Change Save For When They Do, and already there's a Repeal coming down the line. No wonder they're always so stressed...

Might they be interested in some Cluichstani opium? It does an outstanding job of calming the nerves.

The key words being "for the purpose of this resolution". This resolution has no effect on the legal definiation of art.

The people of Ceorana may consider giving support to a repeal if an adequate replacement is presented beforehand.

I really would only like to make the changes I presented (and I wasn't removing that phrase, I was just only quoting the words that I would change which is the numbered clauses I listed). That would be the replacement I would suggest, but I would like input on what other changes are desired.

I'm so glad we coded Repeals.

The Gnomes haven't even finished chisling the Resolution in the Giant Stone Tablets Of UN Law That Never Change Save For When They Do, and already there's a Repeal coming down the line. No wonder they're always so stressed...

OOC: The problem is that many voters don't read these threads when voting so they don't notice the issues with the legislation until a repeal is proposed and the authors, though aware of the short-comings, did not or could not address them. So we're stuck doing it this way. I'm not sure of a way to get around it, but I'm glad it only puts minor stress on our administrative friends.

I'm so glad we coded Repeals.

The Gnomes haven't even finished chisling the Resolution in the Giant Stone Tablets Of UN Law That Never Change Save For When They Do, and already there's a Repeal coming down the line. No wonder they're always so stressed...

Then again... Solar Panels...

There are times when this burden we lay upon the shoulders of those poor Gnomes pays off.

Then again... Solar Panels...

There are times when this burden we lay upon the shoulders of those poor Gnomes pays off.

It's a general problem. I put out a proposal that says I think we should treat the environment better. Everybody goes, I want the environment to be better, let's pass it. And people are in the threads saying, but this doesn't saying anything about how or why or what or anything. It's non-legislation and at best it suggests we care about the environment and at worst it sends a message that we aren't actually doing anything with the UN. Only problem is that most of the voting population does not read the thread and we have to create a repeal in order to put out the flaws to the voters. A crazy cycle for dem gnome fellers.

I really would only like to make the changes I presented (and I wasn't removing that phrase, I was just only quoting the words that I would change which is the numbered clauses I listed). That would be the replacement I would suggest, but I would like input on what other changes are desired.
I wasn't suggesting a change. I was challenging someone else's argument that it was defining art as something it wasn't. It only defines "art" for the purpose of the resolution, not in all law.

I wasn't suggesting a change. I was challenging someone else's argument that it was defining art as something it wasn't. It only defines "art" for the purpose of the resolution, not in all law.
It's a pretty powerful resolution when it comes to art, isn't it though? The proposal protects non-harmful, pretty pictures from government censorship, and allows government censorship of just about everything else.

It's a pretty powerful resolution when it comes to art, isn't it though? The proposal protects non-harmful, pretty pictures from government censorship, and allows government censorship of just about everything else.
It doesn't specifically allow it. It just doesn't mention it.

Wyldtree opposed this resolution from the very beginning and will continue to do so. In fact, this repeal states the exact reasons I was campaigning against the supposed artistic freedom resolution. I applaud the representatives of Jocabia & Gruenburg on the quick & well argued case for repeal.

Unfortunately, for RL reasons, I have no time to read the thread or participate in the debate. But I am forced to request that this proposal be worded in a way that does not plagiarise one of the authors of Artistic Freedom.

It doesn't specifically allow it. It just doesn't mention it.

Actually, because of the vaguery of the 'harm' argument, it allows a government to use this resolution as argument FOR government censorship and the resolution discourages a better replacement resolution.

Unfortunately, for RL reasons, I have no time to read the thread or participate in the debate. But I am forced to request that this proposal be worded in a way that does not plagiarise one of the authors of Artistic Freedom.

Pardon? I look at other proposals in order to word my proposals in a way that will pass. You put your words on legislation that's public record expect them to used in other legislation that are also public record. Be flattered - Good reasoning for repeal is good reasoning for repeal.

Pardon? I look at other proposals in order to word my proposals in a way that will pass. You put your words on legislation that's public record expect them to used in other legislation that are also public record. Be flattered - Good reasoning for repeal is good reasoning for repeal.

That's not what he means. He's referring to your replacement: I would argue he has the right to ask that you not plagiarise him [in the context of NS; communists please don't kill me]. People have been deleted for copying proposals.

That's not what he means. He's referring to your replacement: I would argue he has the right to ask that you not plagiarise him [in the context of NS; communists please don't kill me]. People have been deleted for copying proposals.

Well, I think his proposal is solid and should remain mostly in the original format with minor changes. I would actually ask that he author and promote the replacement with the changes required to make it a better resolution. If the repeal makes him not wish to be involved in the replacement resolution that's a bit of bitterness, I find to be unfortunate.

Well, I think his proposal is solid and should remain mostly in the original format with minor changes. I would actually ask that he author and promote the replacement with the changes required to make it a better resolution. If the repeal makes him not wish to be involved in the replacement resolution that's a bit of bitterness, I find to be unfortunate.

Again, I think you're missing the point. He co-wrote the proposal. If you get it repealed - with or without his support - he is explicitly not giving you permission to reproduce the proposal, with minor changes. So, if he didn't resubmit it, and you wanted to resubmit it, you would have to reword the proposal so as to be original.

Again, I think you're missing the point. He co-wrote the proposal. If you get it repealed - with or without his support - he is explicitly not giving you permission to reproduce the proposal, with minor changes. So, if he didn't resubmit it, and you wanted to resubmit it, you would have to reword the proposal so as to be original.

I wasn't actually planning to resubmit the resolution. I just said what changes I would recommend to anyone resubmitting the resolution.

And according to the complaint in moderation, their argument is that I plagiarized other repeals.

Oddly, it appears the repeal of "artistic freedom" despite the many people who originally complained about the wording is getting no more support than my MGM resolution. Odd, that is.

I'm not talking about Jey's complaint in Moderation. I was referring to Fonzoland's comment, which was about the replacement. However, as you don't actually intend to replace it - a move I wholeheartedly endorse - I guess that is now moot.

I'm not talking about Jey's complaint in Moderation. I was referring to Fonzoland's comment, which was about the replacement. However, as you don't actually intend to replace it - a move I wholeheartedly endorse - I guess that is now moot.

I want it to be replaced, but I'm not sure I'm the one to actually author the replacement and get it passed. I'd be willing to do so, I suppose, but it was not my intent.

I want it to be replaced, but I'm not sure I'm the one to actually author the replacement and get it passed. I'd be willing to do so, I suppose, but it was not my intent.

If a repeal is ever passed, and we will not support any such repeal, Jey feels that we and Fonzoland should be the nations to submit a replacement, if such a replacement is as you suggested--"with minor changes".

If a repeal is ever passed, and we will not support any such repeal, Jey feels that we and Fonzoland should be the nations to submit a replacement, if such a replacement is as you suggested--"with minor changes".

I agree. You can see the changes I would propose in the thread (the second change is a little clunky so perhaps you could find a better way to word it). I believe the changes and the repeal are in the spirit in which you made the resolution in the first place. I'm not sure why you would oppose a repeal that simply seeks to strengthen and clarify the resolution.

Suggestion of alternative wording -

1a) A “work of art” is any original peice (such as a painting, sculpture, novel, comic, poem, musical piece, dance, et al) intentionally created or arranged and deemed to be a "work of art" by the creator of the piece.

Yes, it's intentionally broad, so as to include all original works conceived of the mind. Yep, an email can be a work of art if I decide. Since art falls under the freedom of expression, I have no problem with making all expression fall under the term "work of art" if the artist so desires. Also, it makes protection under this legislation voluntary.

Admittedly 2b is much trickier. I think it simply is going to have to contain more expicit language. Here is a VERY ROUGH draft. As always comments are welcome.

2b) Protection from harm

i)ENSURE that no other person, is emotionally, physically or psychologically harmed, or likely to be harmed, directly or otherwise, by their activities,
ii)ENSURE the peice does not violate the privacy or other individual rights of a person,
iii) exceptions
a) government officials, political parties, corporations, for-profit and non-profit organizations and businesses, and the government in general are protected from physical harm, but are not extended protection from psychological or emotional harm,
b) government officials have privacy and individual rights protection with the exception of those acts that pertinent to their job,
c)those who intentionally enter the public sphere (to include actors, singers, performers, political activists, et al) are protected from physical harm, but are not extended protection from psychological or emotional harm,
d) those who intentionally enter the public sphere have rights and individual rights protections with the exception of those acts that relate to their actions in the public sphere.
iv)The families of government officials and those who intentionally enter are not covered under this exception unless they are also a government official or among those who intentionally enter the public sphere,

It's an attempt to protect satire of public figures but not forfeit their right to privacy or that of their families.

OOC: This was specifically molded to not protect the efforts of papparazzi, but to protect satire regarding public figures.

Fey, here's the changes I proposed. Again, the second change is, indeed, clunky, but I think the point I'm trying to make is there.

Meh, it seems I don't know how to get a resolution passed so I'll leave it someone else. Feel free to use the same wording I used or your own.