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 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.

The official draft takes care of a few issues that came up with the previous draft, namely that the original draft banned works of fiction and was a little too hard on those who passed off information they thought to be correct as fact. I believe that this proposal is worthy of endorsement and, since it only affects international media outlets, it's not really "micromanagement." Therefore, single-nation outlets can lie to their people until they're blue in the face; this just says you can't lie to other nations' people.

This sounds fair enough to me but who gets to apply the penalty if a journalist breaks these rules?

I would like to think that the host government would do that.

Kaigan Miromuta
Kirisuban ambassador to the UN

Ceorana still strongly opposes. While many of the ideas is nice, this is still not in line with our views.

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;
You've banned sarcasm, unless every columnist wants to write SARCASM BEGINS HERE <sarcastic content goes here> SARCASM ENDS HERE.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ceorana still strongly opposes. While many of the ideas is nice, this is still not in line with our views.


You've banned sarcasm, unless every columnist wants to write SARCASM BEGINS HERE <sarcastic content goes here> SARCASM ENDS HERE.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Banning sarcasm. That's a brilliant objection.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

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;We find that you ENCOURAGES news media to publish comments on COURT RULINGS and here it nots clear what is meant by this. As under out law the only time any news is published on a crime is after the trail is over and the person sentenced. Any news of the trail published before that time is a violation of a person civil right to privacy and the fact they are inocent until proven guilty. Thus to put it in news that they have even been charged with a crime is here a crime. If they are found not guilty then there is no news of a crime thus any media that says such is in violation of a person privacy and then there is a crime.. The news media can be fined and those who work for it can be jailed.

Overall we find this gives to much to news media that they don't deserve to get so we find we can't support it. As we have found they cause more problems just reporting things than help solve any problems thus need to be controled to the fullest we can.

Since all International Media is banned in our Theocracy, both from broadcasting from within our territory to other countries and vice versa, the only media allowed to broadcast to our residents being local ones, I have been instructed by our Sanhedrin to express our total indifference to this proposal. If it be submitted, we shall Abstain.

In the Name of the Lord of Hosts,
Novartza Mahershallalchashbaz

Since all International Media is banned in our Theocracy, both from broadcasting from within our territory to other countries and vice versa, the only media allowed to broadcast to our residents being local ones,

Are you sure that that policy doesn't contravene any of the existing resolutions? And just how do you manage to stop outside broadcasts neatly at your borders, anyway?

H'mm, and thinking of theocracies, just who decides whether material on religion, 'new age' philosophies, & suchlike matters, constitutes fact or fiction? There's surely scope for international disagreement on that point...

Are you sure that that policy doesn't contravene any of the existing resolutions? And just how do you manage to stop outside broadcasts neatly at your borders, anyway?

OOC: Perhaps the same way Cuba blocks out transmissions from US stations like TV Marti. Find the frequency being used by the "offending" station and jam it. It's quite simple really.

Are you sure that that policy doesn't contravene any of the existing resolutions?
No, I'm not. Please refer me to any such resolutions so I may advise our Sanhedrin about it.
And just how do you manage to stop outside broadcasts neatly at your borders, anyway?
Selling or owning Satellite TV sets or SW radio receivers is against our law. We monitor Internet access. As for broadcasts from neighboring nations, none of these are in a language spoken by any of our citizens anyway.

H'mm, and thinking of theocracies, just who decides whether material on religion, 'new age' philosophies, & suchlike matters, constitutes fact or fiction? There's surely scope for international disagreement on that point...
Within the borders of our Theocracy, the Sanhedrin does. I don't see why this should be any concern of the International Community, nor why we should be concerned about such issues outside our Theocracy.

OOC: Perhaps the same way Cuba blocks out transmissions from US stations like TV Marti. Find the frequency being used by the "offending" station and jam it. It's quite simple really.

OOC: Simple for an island, with a clear gap between its territories and the broadcasts' source, maybe... but if the country trying to block transmissions isn't an island then, especially if its border with the nation from which the broadcast comes is a fairly irregular line, won't ensuring that no signals cross the border require jamming their reception within parts of that neighbour too?

You've banned sarcasm, unless every columnist wants to write SARCASM BEGINS HERE <sarcastic content goes here> SARCASM ENDS HERE.

I believe sarcasm goes under "opinion pieces." Frankly, in hard news, sarcasm's a wee bit unprofessional anyway, but in opinion pieces or such, it counts. Opinion pieces are usually clearly marked as "editorials" or such, so it doesn't matter. I am not requiring papers to stamp "THIS IS AN EDITORIAL" all over every square inch of their editorial pages, but at the top, printing the word "EDITORIALS" both clearly marks the page as editorials and tells readers where the hell they are in that section of the paper if they haven't figured it out already. So no. I did not ban sarcasm. Try again next time.

OOC: Simple for an island, with a clear gap between its territories and the broadcasts' source, maybe... but if the country trying to block transmissions isn't an island then, especially if its border with the nation from which the broadcast comes is a fairly irregular line, won't ensuring that no signals cross the border require jamming their reception within parts of that neighbour too?

OOC: Sure, but I'd wager that a government wishing to jam broadcasts it deems offensive wouldn't really give a shit.

OOC: Sure, but I'd wager that a government wishing to jam broadcasts it deems offensive wouldn't really give a shit.

OOC: Sure, but the neighbours in which those signals are blocked might "give a shit" ... or consider the blocking an act of war... so I'd be wary about using such a policy unless I was a lot tougher than those neighbours...
(Anyway, apparently that isn't how he's handling the matter so our discussion isn't really relevant...)

No, I'm not. Please refer me to any such resolutions so I may advise our Sanhedrin about it.

Selling or owning Satellite TV sets or SW radio receivers is against our law. We monitor Internet access. As for broadcasts from neighboring nations, none of these are in a language spoken by any of our citizens anyway.

The first part of that policy seems to be acceptable under the current resolutions, but monitoring internet use on a general basis could run into potential legal problems under Resolution #10 'Stop Privacy Intrusion'.


Within the borders of our Theocracy, the Sanhedrin does. I don't see why this should be any concern of the International Community, nor why we should be concerned about such issues outside our Theocracy.

If this proposal gets passed as a Resolution (which we won't be voting for, either) then an internationally-accepted definition would appear necessary. With regards to your nation's internal policies, you might find it advisable to check them against _
Resolution #27 'The Universal Bill of Rights',
Resolution #54 'Universal Freedom of Choice',
Resolution #64 'Freedom of Press'.

I believe sarcasm goes under "opinion pieces." Frankly, in hard news, sarcasm's a wee bit unprofessional anyway, but in opinion pieces or such, it counts. Opinion pieces are usually clearly marked as "editorials" or such, so it doesn't matter. I am not requiring papers to stamp "THIS IS AN EDITORIAL" all over every square inch of their editorial pages, but at the top, printing the word "EDITORIALS" both clearly marks the page as editorials and tells readers where the hell they are in that section of the paper if they haven't figured it out already. So no. I did not ban sarcasm. Try again next time.
My point is that this is none of the government's business. People can stop buying a paper if they don't like the way it indicate's its editorials. People can stop buying a paper if it tells lies. People can stop buying a paper if it uses sarcasm in its hard news. But it's not the government's, and certainly not the UN's, business.

The only way Ceorana would probably support this is if it was an international convention on libel, which might be a good thing.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations