NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft.


Rights of the Media
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

---

ENDORSING the position that factual information is of the utmost importance in making informed political decisions;

RECALLING previous resolutions designed to further the freedom of the press;

CONCERNED that there is only protection of freedom for publishing content, and not actually collecting the information;

1. DEFINES "journalist" as any person who's sole aim in his/her professional actions is to bring factual information to the public;

2. REQUIRES that warring nations cause no intentional harm to journalists in the scene of the battle.

3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on the great majority of their government proceedings, excluding only those that would cause a threat to national security if shown to the general public, including all military proceedings;

4. ALLOWS nations to make restrictions on the behavior and positions of journalists acting on clause #3, but not so many as to greatly restrict the flow of information;

5. PROTECTS media organizations from prosecution for inaccurate reporting on public figures if they had the intention of reporting fairly;

6. STRONGLY IMPLORES all media organizations and sources to pay the utmost cautions to making sure that all material published is factual;

7. URGES both nations and media organizations to make all decisions and actions on this subject in good faith, so as to facilitate the distribution of this information to the general public.


I know that this probably goes over territory covered by other resolutions, and is very possibly illegal right now, but that's why I'm posting a draft, right? ;) Any comments and criticisms would be greatly appreciated.

I like smilies too. They're a good thing. But as with all good things, I recommend that we use them in moderation.

From this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784646&postcount=4) in the One-Stop Rules Shop.

Civility: UN posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the UN. There is a higher expectation of decorum and politeness. Player attacks are not tolerated, whether uncouth language is part of the mix or not. Smilie spam is also more heavily policed in the UN, as it really has no place there at all.

Just thought y'all might want to know about that so you can avoid warnings and such.

The media has no rights in optischer.

Yes it does. Read the resolution "Freedom of Press".

Yes it does. Read the resolution "Freedom of Press".
And given that...how is this distinct from "Freedom of Press" and "Universal Bill of Rights"?

And given that...how is this distinct from "Freedom of Press" and "Universal Bill of Rights"?
FoP and UBC protects the media's right to publish the news. This protects the right to get the news.

I like this idea, but I think it needs work. I'll edit some comments into this post in a minute.

EDIT: Ok.

1. DEFINES "journalist" as any person who's sole aim in his/her professional actions is to bring factual information to the public;
Whose, not who's.

I think this definition is a little off. Wikipedia defines journalism as "a discipline of collecting, verifying, analyzing and presenting information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people" and, whilst that may too be not quite on (it's Wikipedia, after all...), I think it nicely links all the related aspects of journalistic practice, which ties in with the aims of this proposal.

2. REQUIRES that warring nations cause no intentional harm to journalists in the scene of the battle.
Tricky, tricky. This requires that journalists are genuine, something which can't be guaranteed. I think, in general, 'not killing journalists' is something we should requiring in toto, though, not just in warzones.

3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on the great majority of their government proceedings, excluding only those that would cause a threat to national security if shown to the general public, including all military proceedings;

4. ALLOWS nations to make restrictions on the behavior and positions of journalists acting on clause #3, but not so many as to greatly restrict the flow of information;
Don't like 'great majority', and again, I don't see the reason for so narrowing the focus. I would rephrase this, such that the emphasis is on permitting nations only to restrict access to information the public knowledge of which would cause a significant threat to security.

5. PROTECTS media organizations from prosecution for inaccurate reporting on public figures if they had the intention of reporting fairly;
Not sure this is a good idea, at least as phrased. Factual accuracy should be used as a defence against libel; good intentions are not something on which I think a solid legal argument could be based.

6. STRONGLY IMPLORES all media organizations and sources to pay the utmost cautions to making sure that all material published is factual;
Good: perhaps 'factually accurate'?

7. URGES both nations and media organizations to make all decisions and actions on this subject in good faith, so as to facilitate the distribution of this information to the general public.
I don't understand this one, I'm afraid. What does it mean?

I think this definition is a little off. Wikipedia defines journalism as "a discipline of collecting, verifying, analyzing and presenting information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people" and, whilst that may too be not quite on (it's Wikipedia, after all...), I think it nicely links all the related aspects of journalistic practice, which ties in with the aims of this proposal.
Reworded in my new draft, might still need work though.


Tricky, tricky. This requires that journalists are genuine, something which can't be guaranteed.
Perhaps journalists could receive "UN Certification", which would entitle them to immunity?
I think, in general, 'not killing journalists' is something we should requiring in toto, though, not just in warzones.
Yes, but murder is illegal in civilian settings anyhow. I want to protect journalists specially in a setting where killing is the norm.


Don't like 'great majority', and again, I don't see the reason for so narrowing the focus. I would rephrase this, such that the emphasis is on permitting nations only to restrict access to information the public knowledge of which would cause a significant threat to security.
Okay. I think I've done as you've suggested.


Not sure this is a good idea, at least as phrased. Factual accuracy should be used as a defence against libel; good intentions are not something on which I think a solid legal argument could be based.
I kind of borrowed that from the RL US law, (New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan), but it could be something better left up to nations. I did add a clause to let international figures sue for libel, so as to protect them, and pushed that clause back so as to only apply internationally.


Good: perhaps 'factually accurate'?
Taken care of.


I don't understand this one, I'm afraid. What does it mean?
Basically just something to wrap it up, it sounded a bit abrupt. I'll try to clarify it.

And now... draft II!

Rights of the Media
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

---

NOTING factual information is of the utmost importance in making informed political decisions;

RECALLING previous resolutions designed to further the freedom of the press;

CONCERNED that previous resolutions on the subject have only provided protection of freedom for publishing content, and not actually collecting the information;

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. "journalism" as the practice of collecting, verifying, analyzing and presenting information gathered regarding current events;
b. "journalist" as any person who partakes in journalism;

2. REQUIRES that warring nations cause no intentional harm to journalists in the scene of the battle.

3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on all government proceedings, excluding only those that would cause a threat to national security if shown to the general public, including all military proceedings;

4. ALLOWS nations to make restrictions on the behavior and positions of journalists acting on clause #3, but not so many as to greatly restrict the flow of information;

5. REQUIRES that nations allow foreigners to invoke national laws against libel, but

6. PROTECTS media organizations from charges against libel against a foreign public figure if it is found that the reporting was done in good faith and a correction equal in prominence to the original false report was published;

6. STRONGLY IMPLORES all media organizations and sources to pay the utmost cautions to making sure that all material published is factually accurate;

7. URGES nations and media organizations to make all actions on this subject in good faith, so as to facilitate the quick and factually accurate distribution of information to the general public.

The viscious barracudas...err...the media has rights?:eek:

Perhaps journalists could receive "UN Certification", which would entitle them to immunity?
Hmm...quite bureaucratic. And besides, we really do want freedom of the press. Would the UN certificate the Kennyite tabloids who call for genocide of the UN gnomes doing the certification? This is one of those things where the UN as a political entity has to be recognised as not fully neutral.

Yes, but murder is illegal in civilian settings anyhow. I want to protect journalists specially in a setting where killing is the norm.
Is murder definitely illegal? And anyway, I don't see the harm in adding extra protection. Besides, it'll lessen the "my army is my army" chants.

I kind of borrowed that from the RL US law, (New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan), but it could be something better left up to nations. I did add a clause to let international figures sue for libel, so as to protect them, and pushed that clause back so as to only apply internationally.
Actual malice only deals with factual accuracy, though, not with 'fair reporting'. A liberal paper that slated Ann Coulter but got its facts right would be neither libellous nor fair. I think the international aspect is interesting, though.

So...

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. "journalism" as the practice of collecting, verifying, analyzing and presenting information gathered regarding current events;
b. "journalist" as any person who partakes in journalism;
I think 'gathered' is redundant. Perhaps:

"DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 'journalists' as those who collect, verify, analyse or present information on current events"

2. REQUIRES that warring nations cause no intentional harm to journalists in the scene of the battle.
Trouble, of course, with the above definition is still that it would include an intelligence officer. They're collecting info on current events: the enemy's current troop movements.

3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on all government proceedings, excluding only those that would cause a threat to national security if shown to the general public, including all military proceedings;
'including all military proceedings' is redundant. And I still don't see the need to focus on government proceedings. Simply 'access to information, excluding that which...' Also, there might need to something more than national security, such as being able to limit access to information which threatens another nation's security.

4. ALLOWS nations to make restrictions on the behavior and positions of journalists acting on clause #3, but not so many as to greatly restrict the flow of information;
This seems to me to be open for abuse...not sure what it means.

5. REQUIRES that nations allow foreigners to invoke national laws against libel, but

6. PROTECTS media organizations from charges against libel against a foreign public figure if it is found that the reporting was done in good faith and a correction equal in prominence to the original false report was published;
I don't know enough to comment on these yet. Research time, methinks.

7. URGES nations and media organizations to make all actions on this subject in good faith, so as to facilitate the quick and factually accurate distribution of information to the general public.
Still don't really understand.

The latest draft is a considerable improvement, but Ausserland could not support the proposal as written. Our major objections are as follows.

The definition of "journalism" is entirely too broad. It could apply equally well to intelligence collection or industrial espionage.

The exclusion of only national security information from unrestricted coverage by journalists is dangerously narrow. There are many other types of information covered in government proceedings which validly require protection from public disclosure. [OOC: A look at the exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act would provide some examples.]

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Hmm...quite bureaucratic. And besides, we really do want freedom of the press. Would the UN certificate the Kennyite tabloids who call for genocide of the UN gnomes doing the certification? This is one of those things where the UN as a political entity has to be recognised as not fully neutral.
Good point. I guess I'll drop that idea.


Is murder definitely illegal? And anyway, I don't see the harm in adding extra protection. Besides, it'll lessen the "my army is my army" chants.
OK, that works.


Actual malice only deals with factual accuracy, though, not with 'fair reporting'. A liberal paper that slated Ann Coulter but got its facts right would be neither libellous nor fair. I think the international aspect is interesting, though.
OK. I'll just leave it up to individual nations, but keep the ability for foreigners to sue in other nations.


I think 'gathered' is redundant. Perhaps:

"DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 'journalists' as those who collect, verify, analyse or present information on current events"


Trouble, of course, with the above definition is still that it would include an intelligence officer. They're collecting info on current events: the enemy's current troop movements.
Perhaps: "DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "journalists" as those who collect, verify, analyze or present information on current events for the purpose of public release?"


'including all military proceedings' is redundant. And I still don't see the need to focus on government proceedings. Simply 'access to information, excluding that which...' Also, there might need to something more than national security, such as being able to limit access to information which threatens another nation's security.
OK, how about:
3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on all events and happenings, excluding only those in the following scenarios:
a. reporting would cause a risk to the national security of that or of another nation;
b. reporting would infringe on the privacy of a person, or involve entering a privately owned area without permission of the owner;




This seems to me to be open for abuse...not sure what it means.
I was just thinking it meant that the government could tell the journalists to stay in the press section, so as not to get in the way...I suppose it's not really necessary.

I'll post another draft when I have time.

OOC: As a journalist myself IRL, this proposal makes me gag. First, bureaucratising the press? Yeah, make 'em get licenses from the government that they're supposed to be covering. Good way to get people beholden to their benefactors. And the third clause? Who's to determine what should be available to the general public (specifically speaking about the third clause here, where I have to wonder about the including/excluding stuff)?

Cluichstan: I've already decided to forget about the licenses, so yes. About your complaint w/ clause III, I think that the government would get to decide, but of course not unreasonably, because compliance is mandatory

Draft III:

NOTING factual information is of the utmost importance in making informed political decisions;

RECALLING previous resolutions designed to further the freedom of the press;

CONCERNED that previous resolutions on the subject have only provided protection of freedom for publishing content, and not actually collecting the information;

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "journalists" as those who collect, verify, analyze or present information on current events for the purpose of public release;

2. REQUIRES that no person or organization, especially military when a journalist is reporting on a war at the scene of combat, intentionally harm or kill a journalist;

3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on all proceedings within a nation, excepting those that:
a. cannot be publicised due to national security concerns;
b. would involve the press entering private properaty without the owner's consent;
c. have a situation in which the press cannot enter because it would cause an undue hinderance to the actions involved (e.g. entering "clean" biological areas);

4. ALLOWS nations to make minimal restrictions on the positions and behavior of journalists acting as in clause #3, as long as those don't hinder the gathering of information;

5. REQUIRES that nations allow foreigners to invoke national laws against libel, but

6. PROTECTS media organizations from charges against libel against a foreign public figure if it is found that the reporting was done in good faith and a correction equal in prominence to the original false report was published;

6. STRONGLY IMPLORES all media organizations and sources to pay the utmost cautions to making sure that all material published is factually accurate;

I'll say straight off that I don't like journalists on the whole as I tend to see them as vultures, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't support a proposal of this type, but have noticed a few things and thought I'd point them out.

2. REQUIRES that no person or organization, especially military when a journalist is reporting on a war at the scene of combat, intentionally harm or kill a journalist;
You could consider losing this clause. I can see the screams now that terrorists/armies will use journalists as human sheilds, and those screams will have some basis in fact.

Also if any journalist goes into a warzone, then they put up with the risks that come with getting the story. I don't see why they should get special consideration when they put themselves in the dangerzone of their own free will in the first place.

3. REQUIRES that all nations allow journalists to report on all proceedings within a nation, excepting those that:
a. cannot be publicised due to national security concerns;
b. would involve the press entering private properaty without the owner's consent;
c. have a situation in which the press cannot enter because it would cause an undue hinderance to the actions involved (e.g. entering "clean" biological areas);
I can see Waterana is going to have an awful lot of things that can't be publicised due to national security concerns. Like anything we feel the public don't have a need to know ;).

Would also like to see an exception where the actions of the journalist would interfere with a citizens right to privacy. We feel the individuals right to privacy is much more important than a journalists "right" to poke their noses in where they have no business.

4. ALLOWS nations to make minimal restrictions on the positions and behavior of journalists acting as in clause #3, as long as those don't hinder the gathering of information;
I'm a bit confused by this. How can we put up any restrictions without hindering the gathering of information?

I'll say straight off that I don't like journalists on the whole as I tend to se them as vultures, nothing more, nothing less.

*snip*


OOC: Gee...thanks. Love you, too. :p

Sorry, too many years watching reporters chasing some poor sod down the street trying to get a comment, when it's obvious he/she doesn't want to talk to them, or someone totally distraught who's just lost a loved one having a microphone shoved in their face and being asked "how do you feel". Well duh, I wonder.

Then there are the families, including children, of disgraced public persons being badgered to comment and having reporters camped just outside their properties taking photo's of their every move, and I won't even mention the tabloids.

These are just a sample of the some of the disgusting lengths some journalists will go to just for a story and this proposal giving not only permission to do this, but the right to do this is just wrong in my opinion. I don't see journalists as shining knights worthy of special rights and protections, but just another profession that should be made to obey the same rules and laws as any other proffession.

I know not every reporter does the sort of things I've mentioned here, but I've seen too much of that sort of behavior, and it's what has stuck in my mind.

You could consider losing this clause. I can see the screams now that terrorists/armies will use journalists as human sheilds, and those screams will have some basis in fact.

Then the journalists are not mainly functioning as stated in the proposal, so they are no longer called journalists.

Also if any journalist goes into a warzone, then they put up with the risks that come with getting the story. I don't see why they should get special consideration when they put themselves in the dangerzone of their own free will in the first place.
So all of our reporters in combat zones should just leave and go home, leaving us at the mercy of corrupt military reports? The aim of this resolution is to make it more efficient and easier for citizens to get information.


I can see Waterana is going to have an awful lot of things that can't be publicised due to national security concerns. Like anything we feel the public don't have a need to know ;).
Well, I suppose that loophole can't really be avoided. But the public can kind of tell that records on the amount of toilet paper sold aren't national security concerns.

Would also like to see an exception where the actions of the journalist would interfere with a citizens right to privacy. We feel the individuals right to privacy is much more important than a journalists "right" to poke their noses in where they have no business.
I've tried to cover that in "entering private property without permission". Is it possible to infringe on privacy elsewhere?


I'm a bit confused by this. How can we put up any restrictions without hindering the gathering of information?
Stuff like "please go stand over there and report instead of right in the path of this big giant parade.

Then the journalists are not mainly functioning as stated in the proposal, so they are no longer called journalists.
So if a group of armed men storm the hotel in the warzone where these reporters are staying and take them hostage, then hide behind their captives, all protections under this are off, they're not considered journalists anymore, and the opposing army can fire at will?

The proposal says they can't because that would knowingly harm/kill a journalist.

I'm confused again.

So all of our reporters in combat zones should just leave and go home, leaving us at the mercy of corrupt military reports? The aim of this resolution is to make it more efficient and easier for citizens to get information.
If they are so worried about their own safety, then they don't have to be there. In a combat situation all information will be controlled by the military anyway, so the idea if reporters are kept out of harms way that citizens will be left at the mercy of corrup military reports won't make much difference. They will get the same info, no matter who reports it.

Well, I suppose that loophole can't really be avoided. But the public can kind of tell that records on the amount of toilet paper sold aren't national security concerns.
Thats not the sort of thing I was thinking of. I was thinking of things that would protect the privacy of individuals and their families from media beat ups of irrelevent events, like a government minister committing adultry ect.

I've tried to cover that in "entering private property without permission". Is it possible to infringe on privacy elsewhere?
Yes, anywhere the person is acting as a private individual and doesn't want reporters chasing him/her around with a camera and microphone.

Stuff like "please go stand over there and report instead of right in the path of this big giant parade.
I'd rather they stood in front of the parade. With a bit of luck they'd be trampled. Reporters are lower on the food chain than lawyers in Waterana :p.

The proposal says they can't because that would knowingly harm/kill a journalist.
No, because they wouldn't be a journalist anymore, because their primary purpose at the moment would have not been to report information, it would have been to protect the military. However, the military hiding behind the journalists would be in danger, because they would be harming the journalists by denying them their protection as journalists.


Not really true. A journalist could see that thirty people died; if the military wanted to boost citizen support for the war, it could report that three people died.
[QUOTE]
Thats not the sort of thing I was thinking of. I was thinking of things that would protect the privacy of individuals and their families from media beat ups of irrelevent events, like a government minister committing adultry ect.
If a government minister commits adultery, I'm sure a certain demographic wants to know about it. That's what this proposal is trying to protect.


Yes, anywhere the person is acting as a private individual and doesn't want reporters chasing him/her around with a camera and microphone.
OK. Maybe a clause about undue harrassment?


I'd rather they stood in front of the parade. With a bit of luck they'd be trampled. Reporters are lower on the food chain than lawyers in Waterana :p.
Well, this proposal gives you the right to tell them to stand in front of the parade, although if they were hurt, you might be liable. :p

ENDORSING the position that factual information is of the utmost importance in making informed political decisions;


POINTING OUT that many national governments (although not that of St Edmund) see no need to let their people make any political decisions, beyond the [very] limited level of rights in this field that are already guaranteed under existing UN legislation, and may therefore see this clause as irrelevant -- at best -- or even as hostile to their systems.

Apparently the representative of Ceorana continues to believe that journalists should have unfettered license to report on all proceedings of any government body unless the national security is placed at risk. With all respect, we believe that this is a woefully unrealistic position.

It takes no account of the right of individuals to expect the government to protect information which would violate their personal privacy, the need to protect sensitive procurement-related information, the essentiality of protecting the identity of confidential criminal informants and other criminal intelligence, or the many other instances in which the government has a duty to its citizens to keep information confidential.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I'd rather they stood in front of the parade. With a bit of luck they'd be trampled. Reporters are lower on the food chain than lawyers in Waterana :p.

OOC: I'm still here, y'know... :p

My government is just not generally happy about too much definition of the rights of the Press. It seems to many of us that the more you define it, the more you limit it.

Ardchoille is generally ready to welcome UN involvement in broad statements of rights, but would not want to see a resolution that was too specific. For example, constant public questions are often the only way to get a straight answer out of a politician. There's a point at which their spin-doctors realise that the sight of constant 'no comments' is making their charge look just plain dodgy. Or take the case of a 'cancer quack' where the Press reports repeatedly on his failures and tries to get comments from him.

Is this Press harrassment? To those targetted, yes; to the public, often, no. It depends on what the harrassment is about. So we'd oppose a clause about "undue harrassment" if it tried to define what it is.

Journalists get killed in war zones because war zones are dangerous places to be. Shrapnel doesn't check your credentials. But that doesn't stop the journos going where the story is. Some see it as a professional duty to seek answers to the questions that the parents of the soldiers, or the taxpayers who fund the military, ask at home. Understandably, some of the military see it as their professional duty to prevent the journalists from endangering the soldiers.

Unless you want to go in for pages and pages of definitions (the sort of thing that will have even a UN-friendly nation like Ardchoille screaming about 'micro-management'), I think the UN and the Press are better served by general feel-good statements about supporting Press freedom and broadly opposing hindrance of journalists in performing their professional duty.

I may add, 'hindrance' is a word Ardchoille might define as including 'persecution, limitation of civil rights, fines, torture, imprisonment and death of the journalist or his close associates'; other nations might limit the definition to suspending a journalist upside-down by a frayed rope over a pot of boiling lead. Devils live in definitions, don't they?

Thus, with reference to your proposal, I'd prefer to see clauses 2, 3 and 4 dropped in favour of something along the lines of 'requires all member nations to permit journalists to freely pursue the obligations of their profession' -- and no, I don't want those defined too closely, either. (I do want the split infinitive, though, as a means of giving prominence to 'freely').

Clause 5 we'd support as is.

Clause 6 -- well, in theory Ardchoille would love to see our Press being even-handed. But in practice, if any nation were mean enough to do something nasty to our citizens, we'd want the Press to vilify their national leaders.

So we'd like to let all non-nationals, leaders or not, have the right to take the course offered in Clause 5. But we'd prefer to allow the national media the protection of the first Clause 6 by deleting what follows 'in good faith', and by being careful not to define 'good faith'.

If you won't put up with such cynicism, I suppose we'd just sigh and let it go through -- provided you didn't put any time-limit on when the retraction would have to be published.

Your second Clause 6, which I assume is Clause 7, might sound better if you replaced 'pay the utmost caution to making ...' with something along the lines of 'take the utmost precautions to make...'.

Oh, there's a typo in Clause 3c -- 'hindrance', not 'hinderance'. Unless this is one of those US-UK spelling things.

Oh, yeah, Waterana, re those "how do you feel?' questions: grieving people often want to see something published and even become angry if they're not asked. It seems to be taken as proof that other people recognise the value of the person they've lost. Sure, it should be done politely, recorded only with their permission, but I wouldn't totally oppose it.

OOC: Gee...thanks. Love you, too. :p


OCC: Ain't nothing wrong with the bird that predicts the arrival of Spring...the Buzzard.:p Tis a noble beastie.

Not really true. A journalist could see that thirty people died; if the military wanted to boost citizen support for the war, it could report that three people died.
The military will put its operations and soldiers first and control any information leaving the battleground. If they deem it necessary that only 3 deaths are reported, then only three deaths will be reported and any journalist that tries to say different will be quietly removed and sent home. In a warzone, the military are in charge and what they say and want goes. The last thing they'd need is reporters blabbing sensitive information and putting their soldiers in un-necessary danger. I also suspect they'd see keeping moral at home high as vitally important to the moral of the troops.

If a government minister commits adultery, I'm sure a certain demographic wants to know about it. That's what this proposal is trying to protect.
I'm sure they would. Moralists and gossiping housewives spring to mind. That doesn't mean they need to know, or should have a right to know. If the minister is corrupt, committing crimes or anything else that impacts on his position, then yes, by all means it should be public, but adultery is not something that makes a person unfit for office and media beat ups of this type often impact more on the lives of those innocent of any "wrong" doing, like wives and children, who end up harassed by reporters.

Well, this proposal gives you the right to tell them to stand in front of the parade, although if they were hurt, you might be liable.
We wouldn't tell them to stand there, but wouldn't stop them if they did it on their own :D.


Oh, yeah, Waterana, re those "how do you feel?' questions: grieving people often want to see something published and even become angry if they're not asked. It seems to be taken as proof that other people recognise the value of the person they've lost. Sure, it should be done politely, recorded only with their permission, but I wouldn't totally oppose it.
I only commented on what I've seen and very few of those I've seen this happen to looked in any way like they were happy about it. Only with permission would be a huge improvement though.

Apparently the representative of Ceorana continues to believe that journalists should have unfettered license to report on all proceedings of any government body unless the national security is placed at risk. With all respect, we believe that this is a woefully unrealistic position.

It takes no account of the right of individuals to expect the government to protect information which would violate their personal privacy, the need to protect sensitive procurement-related information, the essentiality of protecting the identity of confidential criminal informants and other criminal intelligence, or the many other instances in which the government has a duty to its citizens to keep information confidential.

I apologize for my failure to address this in my previous draft. Would the following be an acceptable as an addition to clause #5:?

d) the reporting would disclose information gathered on the premise of confidentiality, or would disclose information about private citizens without their consent

Of course, there may be other things to cover, if there are, would you please state some of the ideas?

but adultery is not something that makes a person unfit for office

Unless, of course, he's the minister of sexual relations, which I guess you covered, but how do you define that?

It seems to many of us that the more you define it, the more you limit it.
Suppose a clause was added along the lines of this:

PRESERVES the rights of nations to expand on these rights, and emphasizes that this resolution by no means keeps nations from giving the press more rights;

I will respond to other comments in a minute, when I've had time to check the resolution draft for the clauses cited.

Draft IV:

Title: Rights of Reporters
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild / Significant [Any opinions on this?]


NOTING factual information is of the utmost importance in forming informed political views; [Changed to allow for nondemocracies]

RECALLING previous resolutions designed to further the freedom of the press;

CONCERNED that previous resolutions on the subject have only provided protection of freedom for publishing content, and not actually collecting the information;

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "journalists" as those who collect, verify, analyze or present information on current events for the purpose of public release;

2. MANDATES that nations not restrict the work of journalists without compelling reason, mainly those of national security or privacy of citizens; [tried to take into account suggestions of micromanagement, which also takes into account Ausserland's point. Is this too vague, however?]

3. REQUIRES that nations allow foreigners to invoke national laws against libel, for the purpose of law as if they were a citizen, but

4. PROTECTS media organizations from charges against libel against a foreign public figure if it is found that the reporting was done in good faith;

5. STRONGLY IMPLORES all media organizations and sources to pay the utmost cautions to making sure that all material published is factually accurate;

What needs work?

It should include something about threatening journalists to publish lies or not to publish at all.

Also, it could include the right to publish without prior approval by a government or other institutions.

For the rest, a fine resolution. Please also post it in the IDU forum for your region fellows!

It should include something about threatening journalists to publish lies or not to publish at all.
Included in this draft, clause 2, as is part of your other suggestion:

Title: Rights of Reporters
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild / Significant

NOTING factual information is of the utmost importance in forming informed political views;

RECALLING previous resolutions designed to further the freedom of the press;

CONCERNED that previous resolutions on the subject have only provided protection of freedom for publishing content, and not actually collecting the information;

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "journalists" as those who collect, verify, analyze or present information on current events for the purpose of public release;

2. MANDATES that nations and citizens not restrict the work of journalists, including by using threats or related tactics, without compelling reason, mainly those of national security or privacy of citizens;

3. REQUIRES that nations allow foreigners to invoke national laws against libel, for the purpose of law as if they were a citizen, but

4. PROTECTS media organizations from charges against libel against a foreign public figure if it is found that the reporting was done in good faith;

5. MANDATES that nations require no prior licensing before a media organization is allowed to report and publish;

6. STRONGLY IMPLORES all media organizations and sources to pay the utmost cautions to making sure that all material published is factually accurate;

It seems to me like you're mixing two proposals. Freedom of Press may not be strong, but it covers a basic media right. Investigative journalism so tows the line that I don't think you can really create blanket rights without either compromising national and personal security and privacy, or ending up actually restricting media rights. On the other hand, you have the libel aspects. I would suggest just going for the latter, and perhaps concentrating on some basic system for international libel cases, the roots of which seem to be in your proposal.

It seems to me like you're mixing two proposals. Freedom of Press may not be strong, but it covers a basic media right. Investigative journalism so tows the line that I don't think you can really create blanket rights without either compromising national and personal security and privacy, or ending up actually restricting media rights. On the other hand, you have the libel aspects. I would suggest just going for the latter, and perhaps concentrating on some basic system for international libel cases, the roots of which seem to be in your proposal.
You've got a point about the investigative journalism. I guess I'll start working on a draft for the libel alone, or I could just shake this up a bit to work.

Would it be possible to combine the libel with a UCPL replacement, sort of like a "Sensitive Media Protocol", covering international ways of dealing with libel and copyright?