NationStates Jolt Archive

Nations of the UN.

I present this resolution:

Description: UN Resolution #36: Freedom of Humor (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: BELIEVES this resolution is a waste of everyones time, as it has no importance, as it does not do anything other than give the right to make stupid joke.

FINDS this resolution to be a joke as well.

NOTICES that the UN has policy against joke proposals.

REPEALS this resolution, for it is not needed.

Nations of the UN.

I present this resolution:

Description: UN Resolution #36: Freedom of Humor (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: BELIEVES this resolution is a waste of everyones time, as it has no importance, as it does not do anything other than give the right to make stupid joke.

FINDS this resolution to be a joke as well.

NOTICES that the UN has policy against joke proposals.

REPEALS this resolution, for it is not needed.

I would disagree with the honourable delegate that this is un-important or a waste of anyone's time.

Description: Whereas all the enlightened nations of the world recognize that sentient beings possess certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And whereas these same nations delineate many of these rights and recognize that pre-eminent among them is the freedom of speech and expression.

And whereas humor is not merely a pathway toward increased happiness, but can also be used to make important points more gently and succinctly than would otherwise be possible,

Therefore let it be resolved that the member states of the United Nations recognize the right to humor as a fundamental right of sentient beings.

And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.

On the contrary, I would argue that this was too restrictive and should be widened. Freedom of humour is a valuable additional part of freedom of speech, thought and beliefs and should be treated as such. It is no laughing matter.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It seems to the government of St Edmund that the original Resolution's allowed exemption in cases "where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group" is wide enough to let any government that wants to suppress humour within its territories do so without falling into non-compliance, and that the original Resolution is therefore useless. That being the case, we see no reason to oppose this proposed Repeal despite the fact that it is based on different arguments to ours.

I would disagree with the honourable delegate that this is un-important or a waste of anyone's time.

On the contrary, I would argue that this was too restrictive and should be widened. Freedom of humour is a valuable additional part of freedom of speech, thought and beliefs and should be treated as such. It is no laughing matter.Free expression is already protected under several UN resolutions; I never saw the need for a separate resolution for "freedom of humor" (or, for that matter, "artistic freedom").

Alas, however, this repeal implies that Freedom of Humor allows member states to make joke proposals. Oops, sorry; it don't do that. Just have a look at the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) sticky. We're mostly all for repeals wherever we can find 'em, but we will not lend our support to this repeal effort.

~Jack Riley

Free expression is already protected under several UN resolutions; I never saw the need for a separate resolution for "freedom of humor" (or, for that matter, "artistic freedom").

Alas, however, this repeal implies that Freedom of Humor allows member states to make joke proposals. Oops, sorry; it don't do that. Just have a look at the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) sticky. We're mostly all for repeals wherever we can find 'em, but we will not lend our support to this repeal effort.

~Jack Riley
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that all the resolution does is let the Citizens of member states make stupid jokes. I am not saying that it allows member states to make joke proposals. I just find the resolution to be a joke, and I notice the pilicy against them.

I would suggest refraining from insulting arguments in the text of your repeal.

Buon Giorno,

While the Resolution may not be the most needed or warrented of resolutions it would seem to me a Repeal would be just as useless and unwarrented. The Resolution does not harm your nation, harm people, or harm our economies; it just extends freedom of Speech. This repeal then in fact would do nothing but put a restriction on Freedom of Speech and even if you don't believe it has anything to do with that, this Repeal is just utterly useless. And may I add that neither is this Repeal descriptive but it is written rather lackluster.

If there was warrant behind this Repeal then perhaps I would support it, but as for now it is just as useless as the resolution it seeks to repeal.

I would suggest refraining from insulting arguments in the text of your repeal.
What I mean by "a joke" is that the resolution is one of those proposals made that are made just to be funny, not that it is stupid.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that all the resolution does is let the Citizens of member states make stupid jokes. I am not saying that it allows member states to make joke proposals. I just find the resolution to be a joke, and I notice the pilicy against them.I must have misread what you meant by "NOTICES that the UN has policy against joke proposals." Nonetheless, questioning the legality of a resolution is apparently illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10172808&postcount=4).

I'm also concerned about the tone by which this repeal came to light; I'm of the mind that a repeal of this particular bill should be submitted in a lighthearted manner, by someone who, despite his opinion that this resolution is worthless (and it is), can still show that he at least appreciates a sense of humor. And no offense, but you're really being a humorless slug about this.

So, Mr. Riley, should I take a whack at it? ;)

OOC:

How about a repeal full of bad Chuck Norris jokes? That might highlight that sometimes, it's in everyone's interests to be able to tell people to shut the fuck up. For example, instead of the standard "REPEALS Freedom of Humor", it could be "ROUNDHOUSE KICKS Freedom of Humor in the face".

So, Mr. Riley, should I take a whack at it? ;)Oh, go right ahead, Your Sheikiness. I'd still like to know what happened to your Anti-Terror act though. ...

The anti-terror act ran out of time before it could garner enough support unfortunately. However, even without a telegram campaign, it got over a third of the necessary approvals (as of last night). I will be resubmitting it shortly and hope that, with the help of a telegram campaign behind it, it will garner the necessary support and reach the queue.