NationStates Jolt Archive

The Resolution Number 63# has trample on the unilateral right of nations to regulate the presses so that they may not interfere with the due process of government.

The text states the following, and in each line their is an inherent error that must be corrected in the immediate future. It is a grave error to try and control the legislative function of international governments through the issue of freedom of the press.

1. APPEALS to all member nations to enact legislature to allow immediate freedom of the press within their borders.


The Problem with this is that their are members of the media and of the press that intentionally misconstrue or misrepresent the news in order to achieve a given political point or statement. It should be in the best interests of the given ruling government, to be able to have oversight on what is published, and what isn't, so that the government is not undermined by journalistic propaganda.


2. URGES all member nations to send the press to neighboring countries, far away countries, and even to areas of combat to bring back the full story to its citizens.


We should be able to control who recieves sometimes sensitive information that is newsworthy from our nation. There are times when we do not want enemies or other nations that are at odds with us, to recieve news or any other pertaining items from our nation regarding current events, opinions, ecetera.

And the last two items on the resolution are perfectly fine. But let me emphasize clearly so that everyone that it pertains to, shall know. The matter of press and media regulation should be left up to an individual country or parliament to decide with appropriate input from the people of that nation. Their are specific instances throughout the history of the world in which the press has misused it's power in order to undermine the government. That is not right, nor should it be condoned.

The Purpose of repealing this resolution is to leave the power of regulation regarding the press and media in the hands of the individual nation.

just want some input if this is okay to post yet, and if not, what I need to do to fix it. And any suggestions you may have!

Thanks!

Since APPEALing and URGing do not make a clause mandatory, we would suggest that your repeal argument is incorrect in every detail. It does, however, suggest to us that the relevant resolution should be struck down and replaced with something strong enough to prohibit the morally reprehensible stance portrayed in the repeal argument, if we could but find wordings that would assure the independence of the media from commercial interests also.

It'd be MUCH easier to understand your argument if you could find some way to state your reasons for repeal without pasting in large chunks of the offending resolution. It almost seems to me that you could state your entire case using just the last two paragrpahs, with maybe an extra line or two.

Although Scotchpinestan feels that Resolution 63 is vital and thus will not be supporting its repeal, we nonetheless wish you the best of luck in your efforts.

Why do you want powers to hang reporters who say bad things about you or tell lies? R63 in no way stops legal action against persons or groups that print and spread lies about others. Most nations have a legal system that allows one to take to court anyone that may spread such about them. Even a government and they have the greatest power to see that the person is found guilty and pays for their statements.

R63 only suggest nations allow news to be printed for people to read or have read to as most nations first need to work out an eduction system that gets folks able read as well as write otherwise a free press means nothing...

I never once suggested that I wanted execution as a punishment for biased reporting.

I merely think it needs to be re-written with the issues I mentioned added to the language of the original.

The way it is right now, is significantly flawed because it allows for libel and the interference of government function

As Prince Mawr so aptly demonstrated, trying to repeal this resolution will only encourage a more stringent replacement, which I suspect would be even less pleasant for you.

Since it would also be more objectionable to me to see a more stringent resolution on the subject, I'd like to avoid a repeal of #63 at this time.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones