NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNIZING the value of a free and open press to both national and international communities,

UNDERSTANDING that press laws vary from member state to member state,

NOTING that many media institutions are private corporations intended for profit and must act accordingly,

COMMITTED to allowing member states to dictate press laws and regulations within their own borders,

THE UNITED NATIONS:

1. FORBIDS international media outlets from airing, publishing, or disseminating any information that is provably false, including
--libel and slander, defined as false information disseminated that is harmful to a person's reputation or well-being.
--accounts of an event proven not to have taken place, including falsified interviews, falsified witness testimonies, or fabricated stories,

2. DISCOURAGES international media outlets from disseminating any information as fact if it has not been proven, instead treating it as "alleged" or "pending" information, as any information disseminated as fact that is proven to be false will be treated as having been falsified on purpose, even if it was not;

3. FORBIDS the falsifying of any of the following by an international media outlet:
--any legislative or executive official's voting record as well as any judicial official's ruling record,
--the results of any public opinion poll, scientific study, or study of the workings of education, law enforcement, emergency management, health care, or social welfare program,
--demonstrably false business and financial information, including stock prices, bond prices, and prices of goods and services

4. ALLOWS all international media outlets to criticize, oppose, and actively campaign against politicians, legislation, and court rulings using any methods they choose so long as they do not violate any of the above Paragraphs of this resolution;

5. APPLIES this resolution only to those media organizations, both public and private, that are based in United Nations member states and that are broadcast, distributed, or disseminated in at least one other state or nation, whether or not that state or nation is a United Nations member state.

What category would this be? Its clauses 1-3 are Moral Decency/Political Stability, but its fourth is Human Rights/Furtherment of Democracy/Free Press.

We suggest concentrating solely on the first three clauses.

We suggest dropping this intrusive propsal entirely.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If this were regulating domestic media outlets, it would be intrusive; this regulates only those media outlets that are seen in more than one nation. Basically, it says this: if you want to fuck with your own people, we're not here to tell you not to. We draw the line at fucking with other countries' people. Sorry to be so fucking vulgar, but that's what it comes down to.

Also, the first three clauses are designed to establish unacceptable behavior. The fourth clause is designed to say what we're NOT trying to do. The fifth clause is just saying what groups this applies to. Yes, the first three clauses are the most important. I do think all five are useful, though.

Also, the first three clauses are designed to establish unacceptable behavior. The fourth clause is designed to say what we're NOT trying to do. The fifth clause is just saying what groups this applies to. Yes, the first three clauses are the most important. I do think all five are useful, though.
Yeah, the fifth is a definition clause. I'd suggest putting it first, and using "DEFINES", but otherwise I have no problem with it. And you're right - it is international in nature.

But the fourth clause clearly establishes freedom of expression laws - and they're redundant anyway, because of The Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press and Freedom of Conscience. If all you're trying to do is show what the proposal doesn't do, then I would suggest as a rewrite:

"4. EMPHASISES that nothing in this resolution shall prohibit any international media outlet from..."

I didn't think it was perfect, and rewriting clause 4 is probably best, but I sort of wrote things in the order of a train of thought, like this:

IHP: "I have a proposal about the press."
Respondent: "Really. Tell me about it."
IHP: "Well, I wanted to establish that media outlets have their own motivations and stuff..."
Respondent: "So wait. What does it do?"
IHP: "Glad you asked. This propsal blocks media outlets from publishing lies. Libel, slander, fake stock prices, you know..."
Respondent: "You're not trying to keep people from criticizing governments, are you?"
IHP: "Not at all. That's not what this resolution's designed for."
Respondent: "But what about sovereignty? What about the right to do what you want within your own borders?"
IHP: "That's why this only applies to international media outlets. If you want to lie to your own people, well, that's not our department. If you want to lie to people outside your borders, we have a problem with that."

Maybe it's not the ideal way to make a resolution flow, and maybe clauses 4 and 5 should go up front, but I wanted to establish what the proposal does before establishing what it doesn't do.

No, I think it's right to establish what it does do before what it doesn't. But I think you're missing your point. Here's what you say this proposal is:

"The press can't do x, y and z...
...but that doesn't mean they can't do a, b and c"

But to me, it reads like:

"The press can't do x, y and z...
...but they CAN do a, b and c"

So in my reading of it, clause four is establishing new laws. I don't think it should be doing that.

It is the opinion of the ASAA that article 2 of this proposal could cause a major impediment to free debate. Many media events turn out to be false although they were fully believed to be true at the time of the event breaking. The potential for legal action for being proved wrong even when a media organisation acted fully in good faith would be a major discouragement to the pursuit of truthful, inquisitive, probing and investigative journalism and the stifling of open and honest debate and discussion in the media.

The ASAA cannot support such stifling of public debate and discussion.

In addition to this, the ASAA would like to draw attention to the increasing invasion into the private lives of celebrities and politicians by Paparazzi. It is the opinion of the people of the ASAA that such intrusion does little to benefit the public interest yet causes great distress to the people involved. As such the ASAA encourages a change to the wording of this proposal to ensure the rights to a private/personal life of public figures is preserved. Such a ban obviously would need to include exemptions for matters of genuine public interest, our concerns mainly rest with the low "Gutter Press". It is hoped restrictions on such crude for profit journalism may encourage a more intellectual, individually and socially beneficial media to come to the fore.



Heraclitus Yannas
UN Reprisentative of The Allied States of Aria and Attica

It is the opinion of the ASAA that article 2 of this proposal could cause a major impediment to free debate. Many media events turn out to be false although they were fully believed to be true at the time of the event breaking. The potential for legal action for being proved wrong even when a media organisation acted fully in good faith would be a major discouragement to the pursuit of truthful, inquisitive, probing and investigative journalism and the stifling of open and honest debate and discussion in the media.

The ASAA cannot support such stifling of public debate and discussion.

It's one thing to say, "You can't report on something until it's confirmed." It's another to say, "Report on unconfirmed items, sure, but make sure to use language that makes it clear that it's unconfirmed." That does not stifle debate; in no way does it stifle debate. The only thing it does is to cause news organizations to choose their words carefully. Maybe I will reword it, but I think the spirit of the article is good.

In addition to this, the ASAA would like to draw attention to the increasing invasion into the private lives of celebrities and politicians by Paparazzi. It is the opinion of the people of the ASAA that such intrusion does little to benefit the public interest yet causes great distress to the people involved. As such the ASAA encourages a change to the wording of this proposal to ensure the rights to a private/personal life of public figures is preserved. Such a ban obviously would need to include exemptions for matters of genuine public interest, our concerns mainly rest with the low "Gutter Press". It is hoped restrictions on such crude for profit journalism may encourage a more intellectual, individually and socially beneficial media to come to the fore.



Heraclitus Yannas
UN Reprisentative of The Allied States of Aria and Attica

Honestly, I think that issue needs a separate proposal, or maybe it needs an additional article about that. Tell me what you think of a possible Article 6.

PROHIBITS international media outlets from taking photos or videos of anyone who is not, at that moment, in the public eye such that
--no one may follow anyone in a car or on another form of transportation for the sole purpose of photographing or recording,
--no one may take photos or recordings of anyone without their knowledge and verbal or written consent, except when such pictures or videos are, by their nature, in the public realm.

So in other words, the paparazzi can't go snooping around to find celebrities on vacation at the beach, but someone answering questions outside a courtroom or award show is fair game.

If there's a better way to word it, it could go in.

Wouldn't this --accounts of an event proven not to have taken place, including falsified interviews, falsified witness testimonies, or fabricated stories, mean that those media couldn't include short stories, extracts from [or serialised] novels, or even comic strips, alongside their factual content?

It's one thing to say, "You can't report on something until it's confirmed." It's another to say, "Report on unconfirmed items, sure, but make sure to use language that makes it clear that it's unconfirmed." That does not stifle debate; in no way does it stifle debate. The only thing it does is to cause news organizations to choose their words carefully. Maybe I will reword it, but I think the spirit of the article is good.



Honestly, I think that issue needs a separate proposal, or maybe it needs an additional article about that. Tell me what you think of a possible Article 6.

PROHIBITS international media outlets from taking photos or videos of anyone who is not, at that moment, in the public eye such that
--no one may follow anyone in a car or on another form of transportation for the sole purpose of photographing or recording,
--no one may take photos or recordings of anyone without their knowledge and verbal or written consent, except when such pictures or videos are, by their nature, in the public realm.

So in other words, the paparazzi can't go snooping around to find celebrities on vacation at the beach, but someone answering questions outside a courtroom or award show is fair game.

If there's a better way to word it, it could go in.

We warmly welcome such an addition, though would propose the following be added or included in the text in some manner:

"Except where such actions could be reasonably justified as being in the process of a genuinely investigative journalistic endeavour that can be regarded as ensuring the spirit of open debate and democracy, and to maintain accountability of leaders to the people from which they come"

The ASAA greatly appreciate any offers to reword the existing article 2. We do agree that the spirit of the article is fair and true to our ideals, but do have misgivings on the letter, not the spirit of the proposal. We value honesty and openness.

Heraclitus Yannas
UN Reprisentative of The Allied States of Aria and Attica

Wouldn't this mean that those media couldn't include short stories, extracts from [or serialised] novels, or even comic strips, alongside their factual content?

Of course it wouldn't. I just wasn't sure how to put such an exception into the right words. < /covering my ass >

The Dem. States of Ross Port support this proposal, but wish for a clearer exemption of works of fiction such as novels.

I believe that it would be better to just introduce a proposal to forbid slander and libel in the international media. I believe this would clear up the issue a bit.

I am sorry, but Ceorana cannot support this proposal, and will strongly oppose it if it comes to vote. We believe that people have a right to lie, except in cases where it hurts another person or in cases of lying to investigators, and that includes international media outlets.

And clause 1, whether you intend it or not, does ban fiction.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

And clause 1, whether you intend it or not, does ban fiction.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We must admit that we hadn't thought of it that way, but our Ceoranan friend is absolutely correct.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It had to come sooner or later - a revised version of this proposal.

Here goes.

RECOGNIZING the value of a free and open press to both national and international communities,

UNDERSTANDING that press laws vary from member state to member state,

NOTING that many media institutions are private corporations intended for profit and must act accordingly,

COMMITTED to allowing member states to dictate press laws and regulations within their own borders,

THE UNITED NATIONS:

1. FORBIDS international media outlets from airing, publishing, or disseminating any information that is provably false, including
--libel and slander, defined as false information disseminated that is harmful to a person's reputation or well-being.
--accounts of an event proven not to have taken place, including falsified interviews, falsified witness testimonies, or fabricated stories;

2. DISCOURAGES international media outlets from disseminating any information as fact if it has not been proven, instead using language to indicate that information has not yet been confirmed, such that
--criminals who are not yet convicted of crimes should be treated as "alleged" or "possible" criminals, and language used to describe the crime and proceedings should be such that a presumption of innocence or guilt is not present,
--barring overwhelming or indisputable evidence from more than one method or source in favor of a statement, any statement presented as fact should cite the method or source used to conclude a fact;

3. FORBIDS the falsifying of any of the following by an international media outlet:
--any legislative or executive official's voting record as well as any judicial official's ruling record,
--the results of any public opinion poll, scientific study, or study of the workings of education, law enforcement, emergency management, health care, or social welfare program,
--demonstrably false business and financial information, including stock prices, bond prices, and prices of goods and services

4. ALLOWS an exception to Clauses 1, 2, and 3 for opinion pieces, fictional stories for the purpose of education or entertainment, humor columns, advice columns, comics, or submitted letters or statements, so long as they are indicated as such in some way;

5. ENCOURAGES all international media outlets to criticize, oppose, and actively campaign in favor of or against politicians, legislation, and court rulings, if they so desire, using any methods they choose, so long as they do not violate any of the above Paragraphs of this resolution;

6. ESTABLISHES that this resolution applies only to those media organizations, both public and private, that are based in United Nations member states and that are broadcast, distributed, or disseminated in at least one other state or nation, whether or not that state or nation is a United Nations member state.

Now, fiction isn't inadvertently banned, so if there are any other concerns, they can be addressed. Also, I don't believe for a second that a corporation or government's right to lie supersedes the public's right to know the truth. This is why this proposal is written.