NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to our attention that there has been no official act that guarantees people the right to freedom of speech passed by the NSUN.
This proposed bill will protect the right to freedom of speech for all citizens in UN nations.


I.GUARANTEEING freedom of speech for all citizens regardless of political ideology, gender, class, race, sexuality or nationality as long that speech doesn't violate the existance of another human being.

II.GUARANTEEING the right to freedom of expression for all citizens.

III.END persecution of political dissidents, political asylum seekers, political refugees and activists

IV.AFFIRMING the right of all political dissidents to not be targeted for abuse by the state.

V.RESPECTING the right of the press to be free to publish whatever they like regardless of content as long that speech doesn't violate the existence of another human being for whatever reason.

VI.NO institution shall violate the right to Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression outlined in I to V regardless of situation.

VII."UNDOCUMENTED" persons or refugees shall have the same right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

VIII.GUARANTEEING an equal voice for all print, television and radio media regardless of the size and influence of the media institution.

IX.END censorship of media and persons that criticize the government.

The version you have submitted is illegal. Placing the name of your region in your proposal violates the branding rules.

The version you have submitted is illegal. Placing the name of your region in your proposal violates the branding rules.


Sorry about that, I edited it (the forum post), should I re-submit the proposal to the UN?

No, you shouldn't resubmit it. Not without a lot more work, thought and advice, plus a final SpellCheck and a nodding acquaintance with the thread at the top of this forum listing passed NS UN resolutions.

I'm not saying that just to pick on your particular proposal. Every proposal-writer should go through these hoops, including the SpellCheck, because typos happen.

You should also think about what category it belongs in and how strong it needs to be, because that will determine how you write it (eg, an action might be "mandated", "recommended" or just "applauded").

There may also be resolutions already existing that block further lawmaking in that area or that the proposal you're suggesting might duplicate -- for example, look at this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030185&postcount=64) and this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27). Do you still need, say, clauses V, VIII and IX?

When you've checked through all these, and also re-read the stickied thread on rules for proposals, then still don't re-submit it. If you still think you have a workable proposal, then put it in this forum with the label "draft" and use the advice other posters give you.

OOC-->
lol

I first started to write the word "clause" and spell it "claws"...lol

so sometimes even a spellcheck may not be enough....

I blame the warrior's society to use "claws" lol

Very good start. I would add 'religion' in article I so governments can't censor the press just because of their religion.

We find the language of this proposal exceedingly difficult to deal with in terms of law, in that it does not seem to give any directives. For example, how is one to guarantee "the right to freedom of expression for all citizens"? What legal steps must be taken to achieve this end? The proposal is riddled with continuous-tense statements of abstract principle like this with no hint of how to turn such into concrete reality.

We also confess to a great deal of confusion as to what is intended by the phrase "as long that speech doesn't violate the existance [sic] of another human being." If it is an attempt to introduce the traditional rider on free speech that can normally be paraphrased as "you can say what you like as long as people don't complain," then we advise the author to drop it immediately. Either one believes in free speech or one doesn't, and such a rider puts one firmly into the "doesn't" category.

We cannot say that we are happy with clause V. We support the general principle of the freedom of the press, but unless the gibberish of the rider can be rendered into something more sensible we do not think it wise to offer the press a carte blanche to print whatever they like without regard to the truthfulness or believed truthfulness of the statements printed.

We also suspect that there is at least one and probably more missing words in clause VIII, since as it stands it appears to require everyone to read, watch and listen to all media.

OOC: You're falling into a bit of a trap with this, you make the assumption that liberty, freedom, and free expression are commonly understood words. You're dealing with nations here that have a history of political oppression and repressed civil rights. Maybe to your nation and yourself those are easily understood, but to a national leader that doesn't RECOGNIZE them(including the people you're trying to mandate law to here) definitions are required.



IC: We're just going to define speech as the ability to speak. As in "my nation doesn't have the right to remove someone's voice box with this, so I won't,".

We'll define expression as "that look on your face when you're on the toilet"

I'll define political dissidenters as my sister for saying Trey might not be the best dictator in the world. Over dinner. This morning.

I'll define abuse as "smacking them around with money". Besides we don't "target them" they target themselves by being undocumented.

Equal Voice though, no way around that. I suppose that means I'll have to force my populace to watch(and...*sigh* listen to) all stations at all times. Be a boom for industry at least.

Also, it's not "censorship" it's "fact checking".

Ok I have taken all your suggestions into consideration and made an updated draft:



Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Strength: Strong

PREAMBLE:
As there has been no official act that guarantees people the right to freedom of speech, the following proposal will guarantee all UN Nation citizens that right.
The purpose of this is not to ovverride the Universal Bill of Rights and Freedom of Press act but to clarify the definition of “free speech” in detail to prevent confusion, ecspecially among authoritarian states.

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights,

DEPLORING the restriction of criticism by some nations with the excuse of 'national security',

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term,

DEFINING the "freedom of speech" as the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, and "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

Therefore,

ARTICLE I. GUARANTEEING freedom of speech and freedom of expression for all citizens regardless of political ideology, gender, class, race, sexuality, nationality and religion regardless of medium used as long as the citizen does not call for violence against any other group who attempts to excerise their own freedom of speech.
a. 'Ideology' refers to an organized set of ideas or beliefs.
b. 'Gender' refers the classification of the sex, and includes "intersex", "genderqueer", and "transsexual/transgendered" people.
c. 'Class' refers to hierarchical distinctions or power structures between individuals or groups due to their socioeconomic background among other things.
d. 'Race' refers to socially constructed ideas of divisions of people based on their nationality (see below) or appearance.
e. Sexual preference means the a person's emotional preference to love someone, and it includes asexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pansexuality. Transsexuality is a gender and not a sexual preference.
f. Nationality is a person's ethnic origin or country of origin or citizenship.
g. Religion is defined as a social institution that includes a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people. Religion must not be closed to criticism, but persons must not be vilified because of their religion.


ARTICLE II. Political dissidents, political asylum seekers, political refugees and activists must not be targeted for abuse by the state, nor can they be subject to censorship.

ARTICLE III. The government must ensure that citizens have the ability to access all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government.

ARTICLE IV. All institutions including the state would be prohibited from practicing censorship.

ARTICLE V. REFORM and review all relevant leglisation of nation to meet the requirements of this act. Citizens must be informed of all changes

ARTICLE VI: The 'International Free Speech Union" (IFSU) is formed as an UN body dedicated to helping to enforce the previous 5 articles.
a. The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without restrictions.
b. The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c. The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

:)

(OOC comment)

No.
You're still not considering the point that there will be situations in which 'national security' arguments (or 'public safety' arguments) genuinely DO require censorship.
Libel, slander.
The rights of sapient non-humans.

Edit: And forcing governments to ensure that every household has a television, whether they want one or not...

Ok thanks I'll take those into consideration in the next draft.

By the way, by "the rights of sapient non-humans" are you saying we should censor people who bring up the issue of animal-rights or extend the right to free speech to non-humans too?

EDIT: Because there would be no way I would legislate to censor animal rights activists as I am one in real-life.

Can flag burning be considered a matter of free speech? Some foreigners showed up at our government building and burned our flag, we arrested them and they are being prosecuted. They claim they are following our laws of free speech. Our judges don't want to convict foreigners if the UN is about to pass such a law. Any opinions? Our citizens are in an uproar but they respect the UN.

Can flag burning be considered a matter of free speech? Some foreigners showed up at our government building and burned our flag, we arrested them and they are being prosecuted. They claim they are following our laws of free speech. Our judges don't want to convict foreigners if the UN is about to pass such a law. Any opinions? Our citizens are in an uproar but they respect the UN.

I think it is a form of free speech.

Well, it depends though. Is that flag really that non-important a symbol to be treated like dirt? Could you easily get the message across that the government is bad just by shouting and making speeches?

I suppose it's based on the values of that nation, but I think that as long as you are not restricting that person from voicing his criticism of the government via other methods, then you could ban flag burning. Personally, my nation avoid the whole issue by banning flags all together, but that's another story.

Well, it depends though. Is that flag really that non-important a symbol to be treated like dirt? Could you easily get the message across that the government is bad just by shouting and making speeches?

I suppose it's based on the values of that nation, but I think that as long as you are not restricting that person from voicing his criticism of the government via other methods, then you could ban flag burning. Personally, my nation avoid the whole issue by banning flags all together, but that's another story.

Well generally people who burn flags do so for a reason. You can disagree with someone's actions but banning an act because you don't agree with it even though no one is physically affected is censorship.
I don't see a reason to ban flag-burning as the flag is just a symbol and no one depends on the flag to live. When people burn flags, they don't harm or affect anyone and do so to get a message across.

Peace,
Citizen of Librustralia

Alliance of Socialist States Secretary | Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalist Party

... Our judges don't want to convict foreigners if the UN is about to pass such a law ...

Don't hold your breath.

"the rights of sapient non-humans" : St Ed's track record would suggest that he's saying that UN proposals must be written to apply to all sapient beings, human or non-human, whose nations are UN members. If he's not, I am.

Citizens: Having proposals apply to "citizens" is often a big, flashing sign saying "loophole". It's too easy for a nation to redefine "citizenship". One way around this is to use the lawyers' word "persons". (Me, I'd use "people", but every time I bring this up I'm told by the lawyerly that it's not the same.)

Librustralia, are you sure there's nothing in here that duplicates existing resolutions? (I'm not asking from an I-know-the-answer position here; it's not my job to check that, it's yours).

You should have another look at the strength. Though you've called it "strong", you haven't actually said who is doing this, or how firm they are about having it obeyed.

I think you need something like, "The United Nations ... GUARANTEES that (clause 1) ... MANDATES that (clause 2) ... " and so on - that is, you need some active verbs. Otherwise nitpicky nations such as mine might well read only the IFSU clause as being an actual UN direction.

When you're writing a proposal that says nations may or may not do something to, for, by, with, whatever, followed by a list, you'll find the phrase "including, but not limited to" very useful. For example, "may not discriminate on grounds including, but not limited to ... ".

Okay, handing over now to my President, Dicey Reilly (IC):

I'm largely dismissing the preamble because that's what my Secretary for Situations Like This tells me to do, on the grounds that preambles don't have teeth.

All the same, I don't like the bit about "ecspecially (sic) among authoritarian states". It is possible to be an authoritarian state and still be fully compliant with UN directives, and therefore I see no need to for the UN to be seen favouring one form of government over another.

Now, a nos moutons:


ARTICLE II. Political dissidents, political asylum seekers, political refugees and activists must not be targeted for abuse by the state, nor can they be subject to censorship.

So in an election, political dissidents and activists -- such as the Opposition -- can run a negative campaign against the government, but the government can't campaign negatively back, because that could be seen as "the state" targeting the Opposition for abuse? Nor can the government stop libellous or racist political pamphleteering, because that's censorship?


ARTICLE III. The government must ensure that citizens have the ability to access all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government.

The government has to make sure that every citizen has access to every form of communication that supports or criticises the government -- including giving them subscriptions to every Parents and Citizens newsletter, every handout by the three-member Democratic Libertarian Socialist Revisionist Populist Reform Party that operates from its leader's bedroom, every magazine ... not to mention presenting each citizen with a radio and a television.

Hmm. I'm glad you didn't include the internet as a means of communication, because we won't be able to roll out wireless broadband nation-wide for a year or so, and dial-up's too slow for politics.

ARTICLE IV. All institutions including the state would be prohibited from practicing censorship.

Churches are institutions. Schools are institutions. Prisons are institutions. Should this pass in its present form, I think we would all experience some ... interesting ... times.

In a spirit of unselfishness, and also because I'm thirsty again, I leave subsequent clauses to others to discuss.

But in closing, may I beg you not to add anything on the subject of flag-burning? You surely don't want your proposal dragged down by minor issues that vary from nation to nation and therefore can easily be decided by national legal systems.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Citizens: Having proposals apply to "citizens" is often a big, flashing sign saying "loophole". It's too easy for a nation to redefine "citizenship". One way around this is to use the lawyers' word "persons".There's no need for such gymnastics, really. Many nations requires military service to qualify as a citizen. Adjusting the requirement for citizenship is much less torturous than redefining "persons".

Sorry, Hack, I don't geddit.

What I was trying to say is that it is, indeed, easier for a nation to redefine (adjust the requirement for) "citizen" than to redefine "person".

From which I'm arguing that if you want a proposal to be hard for nations to avoid, then having the proposal use "persons" is a good thing, because the recalcitrant nations will have more trouble getting around the term "persons" than they will getting around the term "citizens".

Hence, a proposal that give freedom of speech to all persons is more inclusive than one that gives freedom of speech to all citizens, and harder to get out of, because -- as we apparently agree -- it's harder to redefine "person".

So, are we agreeing on the method but differing on the results, or what?

(Or -- aha! -- Dr Leary's come up with some evil extremist plot to limit freedom of speech to the military, eh? Eh? :p)

The subject of non-human sapience should be left to a separate resolution; we can't keep hijacking all Human Rights topics just because St Edmund is on a crusade. Interestingly enough, StEd already has a draft on non-human sapient rights. Why doesn't he just resurrect that instead of harassing proposal authors with non-sequiturs?

I agree that a debate about the rights of sapients belongs in a different thread. Still, the proposal writer could just use "beings" instead of "humans" and avoid having an off-topic argument muddy the waters.

I used "sapient" in my post, as St Edmund did in his, but you're right, it's not necessary here. (I don't see it as harrassment to raise it, though.)

What is necessary, I think, is to acknowledge that the NS UN has members who aren't human, and to write proposals in a way that will apply to them as well.

We may by convention assume that "humans" includes all beings, just as we conventionally assume "men" means women and transgender people as well; but presumably we want rights to include as many beings as they can, so why not cover as many bases as possible?

EDIT: I should add that it's up to the author. I don't think this is the kind of thing on which this proposal would stand or fall.

It's OK as long as anarchist doesn't apply in the freedom of speech...

What I was trying to say is that it is, indeed, easier for a nation to redefine (adjust the requirement for) "citizen" than to redefine "person".I, I gotcha. Yeah, we were arguing similar things but from a slightly different perspective. Yes, "person" would be less loophole-prone than "citizen".

And while the Hack has many non-human citizens (interestingly enough, Mme. Pejorative's status is tricky as she predates the Hack), OMGTKK is correct in leaving such definitions to a different Proposal.


It's OK as long as anarchist doesn't apply in the freedom of speech...Um... what?

Hack, he must have meant: "It's okay unless someone's idea of free speech includes throwing bombs and blowing up buildings." Violence is certainly not free speech.

I am sure he does not mean to disparge upon the form of government known as "Anarchy".

ritualized violence can be free speech? thinking of doing a kata in front of my flag burners and accidentally get too close to one of them.

Well generally people who burn flags do so for a reason. You can disagree with someone's actions but banning an act because you don't agree with it even though no one is physically affected is censorship. I don't see a reason to ban flag-burning as the flag is just a symbol and no one depends on the flag to live. When people burn flags, they don't harm or affect anyone and do so to get a message across.

Peace,
Citizen of Librustralia

Alliance of Socialist States Secretary | Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalist PartyAlso if you have laws in place to cover certain things then you will not need to make some law to keep people from burning a flag.

Law examples they may violate if they burn one.

1. Destruction of private or public property if the flag they burn is not theirs.
2. Burning without proper permits as required to burn anything.
3. Violations of Air Polution Codes Standards due to harmful polutions produced when burning any flag.
4. Trespassing as they may be on property not theirs when they burn it and fail to get permission to come on the property.
5. Attempted Arsen if they are near any structure that might catch fire from the burning flag.


Also each is a single separate charge with times one will do when charged and found guilty so figure 5 years each crime min and then go from there. At least 25 years just the five noted above. No need to add charges of burning a flag if right laws are on books and used.

Also on #5 if they burn it in a school, grave, or church -yard add time for them to do or find other charges.. use existing laws and enforce them... it will stop flag burning.

However this is not what we find wrong with this.. DEPLORING the restriction of criticism by some nations with the excuse of 'national security',National Security is an issue we feel is the highest of importance to us. AS it means our citizens are safe to express themselves if we keep out those who might get violent when they do. Thus without effective national security we can't deal with those might disrupt order in our nation and disturb the citizenship who made this nation what it is.. If you don't like what we do then stay home... we have not invited you here nor will we.. and we sure will not force you to come here. However if you do elect to come we will welcome you just obey our laws and you can have a good time. Fail to obey them and you will learn all about out prisons.



Also the word SPEECH to us only includes what is spoken. Written text is not speech it a separate issue.. as what is written stays around a good while while spoken often only last if somebody tries to write it down and keep it in the view of people otherwise it soon forgotten if not spoken again. Thus to us two different issues and fall under different laws as far as what can be written.. verses what is said one time and that ends it. However when spoken becomes written then it comes under those laws as far as being true or false and thus causing harm to an individual or group of individuals. Same applies for painting pictures or making images of individuals as that not speech and has a lasting effect beyond something said once.., even movies on something is not speech even though it has speaking in it.. it falls in with written text as far a lasting effect and how one must present it or not present it.

Expression also is another issue.. If you pat me on the arse as a expression of friendship you might first end up in hospital then prison.. for sexual assault. So one needs to learn the proper customs in any nation. If arse slapping is simply an expression of friendship then okay if it sexual assault then find out how they express friendship and use.

So in an election, political dissidents and activists -- such as the Opposition -- can run a negative campaign against the government, but the government can't campaign negatively back, because that could be seen as "the state" targeting the Opposition for abuse? Nor can the government stop libellous or racist political pamphleteering, because that's censorship?
This is one of the few points on which we would concur with this otherwise dangerous pile of generalities. The government shouldn't campaign back negatively during an election. In fact, the government shouldn't campaign at all during an election. The ruling party, which is not the same thing as the government at all, should be doing its own campaigning.

Revised draft with duplicates of previous resolutions taken out:


APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the restriction of criticism by some nations with the excuse of 'national security'.

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

IN ADDITION to 'Universal Bill of Rights' and 'Freedom of Press' resolutions,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) 'libel' (untruthful slander against an individual or entity),
b) any threat of violence, either overt or implied,

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government cannot be shut down or censored by national governments except when allowed in Clause 3.

5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a)The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without restrictions.
b)The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c)The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies.



Ok with the national security thing... it's a term being increasingly taken up by authoritarian regimes (not saying your nation is one :)) to justify repression of their own citizens which is why that line is in the preamble.

looks good to me........just as long as others find it goodly too.....

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

The word 'voice' in no way includes written or drawn materials as it is what comes from ones mouth or in some cases the other end. Thus any later reference to printed materials or recorded materials or drawn materials is not 'vocal' a new issue not cover under your title.. Freedom of Speech then as you define speech... 'right to voice' it says nothing about writing it down, or recording it, or drawing pictures... just vocal communiction of material.... voice....

If you want to
4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government cannot be shut down or censored by national governments except when allowed in Clause 3. Cover anything not vocal or spoken then it a new issue.. As we have earlier stated.. Vocal comments often only last a short while and or forgotten unless they become written or are recorded then they linger to cause troubles people hearing them over over again soon believe lies as truths.. Thus to us you say it once just don't repeat it unless it fact and true, and for sure don't publish it or record it if it a lie. Do it in a new proposal this one by title and how you define 'speech' is only suppose to cover voice communictions... and should only cover that. As they only thing MANDATED here is printed text and that has nothing to do with vocal speeches. As we consider a TV show equal in harm done if it false as any written text might be and has the same restrictions on it as written text might when it deals with real life things that effect individuals or groups. Also marching to protest something or blocking entry to a building, burning anything is not vocal or voice or speech as defined here. Thus another issue... also.

The word 'voice' in no way includes written or drawn materials as it is what comes from ones mouth or in some cases the other end. Thus any later reference to printed materials or recorded materials or drawn materials is not 'vocal' a new issue not cover under your title.. Freedom of Speech then as you define speech... 'right to voice' it says nothing about writing it down, or recording it, or drawing pictures... just vocal communiction of material.... voice....

If you want to Cover anything not vocal or spoken then it a new issue.. As we have earlier stated.. Vocal comments often only last a short while and or forgotten unless they become written or are recorded then they linger to cause troubles people hearing them over over again soon believe lies as truths.. Thus to us you say it once just don't repeat it unless it fact and true, and for sure don't publish it or record it if it a lie. Do it in a new proposal this one by title and how you define 'speech' is only suppose to cover voice communictions... and should only cover that. As they only thing MANDATED here is printed text and that has nothing to do with vocal speeches. As we consider a TV show equal in harm done if it false as any written text might be and has the same restrictions on it as written text might when it deals with real life things that effect individuals or groups. Also marching to protest something or blocking entry to a building, burning anything is not vocal or voice or speech as defined here. Thus another issue... also.


What if we use the word "express" instead of "voice"?

What if we use the word "express" instead of "voice"?That is to wide a term as one can run nude down main street and call it expressing something.. Yet to say I want to run naked down main street is not acting on it. It's a simple expression of something I may want to do or plan to do. No crime committed when I simply exress it to others in words. When I express it by doing then... it the crime... You can say anything you want it putting it into acts or just repeating it over and over until folks act on it that makes it a problem.. I can print nude photos of an individual and claim I'm express my love for beauty the human nude form.. If those photos are of you and you never gave me legal right to print then my act of expression became a crime as since it not speech it should not be covered under freedom of speech..... as I can say somebody to me looks good in raw and be just expressing my views on it, but to show photos without legal permission even if expressing my views still is again a crime.

OOC: This is where folks get into trouble as in US it Freedom of Speech not freedom to go out and burn a flag or run nude down streets. Back about 1776 they would probably have burned you for those crimes or flogged you or hung you..

This is one of the few points on which we would concur with this otherwise dangerous pile of generalities. The government shouldn't campaign back negatively during an election. In fact, the government shouldn't campaign at all during an election. The ruling party, which is not the same thing as the government at all, should be doing its own campaigning.

OOC: My apologies for not being clearer, Gobb. I'm aware of the distinction. That post was influenced by real-life events in the recent Australian election. Advertisements were made that were seen by one side as party-political, by the other -- which was then in government -- as public service announcements that could rightly be paid for by the State. That caused a row over exactly the point you make.

IC: While I agree, Prince Rhodri, that the proposal was and is full of generalities, the delegation from Librustralia is evidently doing their best to whittle them away and, I'd guess, learning a lot in the process.

I must regretfully admit that I don't really believe they can write a single proposal on this topic that will at the same time satisfy the rules and cover all the eventualities. But I think the experience of trying will explain why existing resolutions are phrased the way they are.

It may also lead to their looking for a wall to beat their heads against as the topic flies off-track or wriggles out from under yet again, but that's a UN experience that proposal writers have to find out about, too.

I've no doubt that if the discussion ever reaches Clause 5, for example, they'll get a crash course in national sovereignty arguments. And they're probably already experiencing the dismay of finding that every definition staggers deeper into the mire of requiring more definitions ('libel' and 'threat of violence', for example).

But I look forward to further proposals from Librustralia, tempered by the experience, hardened by the opposition and sharpened by the wisdom of the General Assembly.

-- William Edward Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

Well, uh, to be fair...

I am the co-writer of the Freedom of Speech Act. Just wanted to let people know (because I'm afraid that my little contribution to this resolution might be forgotten). Librustralia came up with the idea, and I'm just the typist trying to navitage through this mess.

Sorry for the, uh, confusion. All the blame lie on me.

All the blame lie on me

Beware of accepting blame in the General Assembly. Several reprobates operate a Defenestrator and they're all too ready to use it.:D

But if you are accepting blame, you may as well accept praise, too. It's a hard topic to frame a proposal on. It's even harder to keep coming back with it time after time. But it shows you're more than just a one-trick pony.

I just keep referring to Librustralia because I'm Australian, so his name sticks in my forgettery better.

Ok with the national security thing... it's a term being increasingly taken up by authoritarian regimes (not saying your nation is one :)) to justify repression of their own citizens which is why that line is in the preamble.
It is also used by quite respectable & responsible regimes to prevent the publication of material that really shouldn't be allowed into the public domain: To use a RL example, what if some British newspaper had obtained and (irresponsibly) chosen to publish the plans for D-Day just a couple of days before that event was scheduled to occur? Or what if a nihilist-run publication tried to publish a recipe for the easy production of bioweapons?

Sorry I haven't mentioned this before but thanks to Silentscope for all the help in writing this proposal! :D This proposal wouldn't have gone anywhere without him.

Also thanks to everyone here who provided constructive criticism. :D

Here's another draft:

We've used the word "express" instead of voice" and the "national security" clause is back in due to popular demand. >.>

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

IN ADDITION to 'Universal Bill of Rights' and 'Freedom of Press' resolutions,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) 'libel' (untruthful slander against an individual or entity),
b) any threat of violence, either overt or implied,
c)any speech that would be seen as infringing on "moral decency", defined as "conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty",
d)any direct threat to national security

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government cannot be shut down or censored by national governments except when allowed in Clause 3.

5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a)The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b)The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c)The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies.

Category? Strength?

Far be it from me to intrude, but I am a bit concerned about 3.d). In my short time as UN Ambassador, I have already met people who would view any criticism of their government as a threat to 'national security'. In some cases they may even be right, with their country on the brink of breakdown. I am unsure about how to resolve this difficulty though.

Hari Desana,
Dasri Ambassador to the UN.

Far be it from me to intrude, but I am a bit concerned about 3.d). In my short time as UN Ambassador, I have already met people who would view any criticism of their government as a threat to 'national security'. In some cases they may even be right, with their country on the brink of breakdown. I am unsure about how to resolve this difficulty though.

Hari Desana,
Dasri Ambassador to the UN.

Exactly why I didn't want to put it in but a lot of people wanted it in. :(


Category? Strength?

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Strong/medium (haven't decided yet)

I support this proposal. All human beings deserve the right to express themselves freely. The government should have no control over the thoughts of its citizens.

Another draft with typos and 3c fixed up.


FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

IN ADDITION to 'Universal Bill of Rights' and 'Freedom of Press' resolutions,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) 'libel' (untruthful slander against an individual or entity),
b) any threat of violence, either overt or implied,
c) any speech that would be seen as infringing on "moral decency", defined as "conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty" or vilifies another human on grounds of gender, nationality, race, religion or sexuality.
d) any direct threat to national security

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government cannot be shut down or censored by national governments except when allowed in Clause 3.

5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a) The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b) The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c) The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

Anyone see any more faults with this or want to add more clauses?
If not, shall we start a TG campaign? :D

I support this proposal. All human beings deserve the right to express themselves freely. The government should have no control over the thoughts of its citizens.

expression and thought are not synonymous to each other. Are you implying that someone can act out his innermost desire within his thoughts? That expressions are ok because the government allows anyone to have any thoughts? I do hope your citizens have no ill will against you because from what you have said, you would encourage them to express their thoughts and in our society, the sword swipe is a form of expression but we do have rules as to how certain expressions are to be carried out.

We regret to say that we believe 3c undermines the entire resolution, and we certainly couldn't support a resolution that included it.

Er, you do realize that indecency is not protected speech, right?

We regret to say that we believe 3c undermines the entire resolution, and we certainly couldn't support a resolution that included it.

Ok fair enough. How about we got rid of the first part about "decency" and kept the second half about racism, sexism and homophobia? ;)

Er, you do realize that indecency is not protected speech, right?IF you're defining indecency as obscenity, you may have a point...for certain jurisdictions.

However, article 3c references "infringing on "moral decency", defined as "conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty" which is a far, far cry from obscenity (which itself has proven time and again to be difficult to define).

Ok fair enough. How about we got rid of the first part about "decency" and kept the second half about racism, sexism and homophobia? At least for us, as tempting as that is, it still violates the principles of freedom of speech. Government initiated censorship and repressed speech, regardless of its hatefulness, is bad. Always.

Ok fair enough. How about we got rid of the first part about "decency" and kept the second half about racism, sexism and homophobia? ;)Um, no, if local communities in my nation have decency standards, they're going to enforce them. Stripping communities of the power to enforce local standards would be just insane.

OOC: If you're going to use the term homophobia, I'd prefer you change it to queerphobia. That's a broader term, includes many people who aren't exclusively homosexual, as well as including the transgender umbrella.

The whole problem is you can not regulate "Free Speech" it's an all or nothing thing and can only "regulated" on the local/community level.
My 2cents
:)
FaE Tyrson

I find it strange that the people who wanted 3C taken out didn't want 3D taken out :confused:

3c is out! ...and while we're at it, 3d is out too because because the term "national security" is obscure and broad. In my opinion, there is no such thing as "national security" as the term usually means "protecting the privileged and the state".
Just about anything that is in opposition to the dominant ideology or the government can be viewed as a "threat to national security" and that undermines the purpose of this resolution. You may be able to stop people from staging a coup (besides, that would go under "inciting violence" and doesn't need to go under "national security") but you can't stop them from criticizing the government.

SilentScope and I have agreed that we will begin the TG campaign on Monday. :D


FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

IN ADDITION to 'Universal Bill of Rights' and 'Freedom of Press' resolutions,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) 'libel' (untruthful slander against an individual or entity),
b) any threat of violence, either overt or implied and/or on the basis of gender, nationality, race, religion or sexuality.

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and if it supports or criticizes the government cannot be shut down or censored by national governments except when allowed in Clause 3.

5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a) The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b) The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c) The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

I can't help but think that this simply must be duplicating an existing Resolution. Could one of the regulars tell me if I'm just hallucinating again?

I find it strange that the people who wanted 3C taken out didn't want 3D taken out :confused:

3c is out! ...and while we're at it, 3d is out too because because the term "national security" is obscure and broad. In my opinion, there is no such thing as "national security" as the term usually means "protecting the privileged and the state".
Just about anything that is in opposition to the dominant ideology or the government can be viewed as a "threat to national security" and that undermines the purpose of this resolution. You may be able to stop people from staging a coup (besides, that would go under "inciting violence" and doesn't need to go under "national security") but you can't stop them from criticizing the government.And what about preventing the publication of classified materials? Any thought that you possibly could have won my support on this has just been obliterated.

I can't help but think that this simply must be duplicating an existing Resolution. Could one of the regulars tell me if I'm just hallucinating again?

Now that you've raised the point...

*(checks list of passed resolutions)*

How about Resolution #26: 'The Universal Bill of Rights' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27), specifically its clause that says Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference. and Resolution #63: 'Freedom of Press' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030185&postcount=64)?

(H'mm, looking at the first of those -- whose details I must have overlooked previously -- it would seem that we already can't claim any exemptions even for good reasons such as 'national security'... :()

Oh dear, oh dear indeed.

Well, I'll still rather have 3C and 3D be kept. Personally, I and Lib. argued on this point, but this is Lib.'s draft, so it's really his choice.

But...now that St. Edmund has found Article 2 of the UBR (and I must have overlooked the whole 'no restrictions' part)...looks like the TG campagin is cancelled. All our ideas has already gotten passed in the UN Assembly during the good old days, and we just now are starting to read them and get horrifed. [Resolution #63, Freedom of Press, has nothing really forcing nations to do anything, only asking for it to change its policies. UBR however does force people to change.]

Turns out all the time, we can't restrict free speech on anything at all. Not for libel. Not for national security. Not even for hate crimes. I'm sure the lack of restrictions also covers censorship and restriction of the press too. It's too broad, even broader than Lib. desired. And it was all summed up in one sentence.

Taking out the definition and the actual restriction clauses, we are only left with Clause 5. A useless commitee never goes well with the UN states on this board, altough some people do like them anyway.

In theory, however, the 1st Amendment declares "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", and then its courts said, "Wait, there ARE exceptions to this!" So, we could use this resolution to add in exceptions for certain types of expressions, such as libel. But this it the UN we are dealing with here, not the US, and besides, the UN forces compliance anyway, so I don't think there is any way to go around this.

OMGTKK, instant-repeal time?

If the mandate of UBoR is absolute and doesn't allow restrictions on anything, how did we ever pass Freedom of Assembly? Then again, all UBoR does is "endorse" these freedoms, so if you wanted to get wanky, you could argue that it doesn't protect anything at all. Freedom of Press, if you actually read it, really doesn't protect anything.

To my mind there has been no comprehensive UN ban on censorship yet.

OMGTKK, instant-repeal time?As soon as my time machine starts working again, I'll happily go back to August 2003 and submit an "insta-repeal" of UNR #26. Till then, you're just going to have to live with it.

OOC: Also pretty close to duplicating "Artistic Freedom"? I sometimes think on these marginal decisions, though, there's a better question: "what is the point?" We already have at least three or four resolutions protecting freedom of expression. There are plenty of issues that haven't been discussed, and this is meant to be a game. But yes, if it were my call, this duplicates Resolutions #26, #63 and #138, though perhaps not to the extent of being illegal, and possibly contradicts the first one which makes no allowance for censorship.

IC: We oppose this proposal very strongly. Clause 3 is very good, however, because it quickly flags up to us that the author knows nothing about the subject, and we don't have to worry about being bested in debate by a ferocious intellect. '[L]ibel' and 'slander' are essentially cognates and the difference is the medium (at a very basic level, libel is written defamation whereas slander is spoken defamation). I'd also point out that the definition of censorship means that an editor retracting a column becomes illegal!

I've also been asked to voice our apparent concern over clause 4. While I consider my government's ongoing anti-monopoly lawsuits against media corporations gaining unfair market shares to be feckless communism, Ms Benson apparently takes them more seriously; this proposal would undoubtedly prevent them.

Edit: Ok, this gets better. Reading over it, I've just realized the following scenario is illegal: a government sets up an information channel; it doesn't get enough viewers; it closes it down. That's illegal! Hahahaha!

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador and Secretary of State for UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

Working on the possibly erroneous principle that this proposal is legal, we have the same objection to the remove of clause 3d as others have voiced, and we must echo Mr Madison's concern at the level of understanding of the subject shown by such a removal.

We are also concerned that 3b does not currently mean what the authors would like it to mean.

b) any threat of violence, either overt or implied and/or on the basis of gender, nationality, race, religion or sexuality.

Read literally, a government may suppress free speech where there is a threat of violence, which we grant is a good thing. It may also suppress free speech on the basis of gender, or race, or the like, which is unlikely to be the authors' desire. It certainly isn't ours. We would suggest dispose of the error along with the potentially incomplete list by replacing the text with something like this:

b) any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied, against any group or individual.

We also have some very minor wording suggestions for clause 4:

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by national governments except when allowed in Clause 3.

The extra comma in particular makes the sentence read more easily. We must however concur with Ambassador Madison that more thought need to go into this clause as regards government-owned media channels.

@ omgikilledkenny: Added 3c.

@quintessence: Fixed up the libel thing. Thanks for pointing it out, it was an honest mistake. How would a free speech proposal prevent lawsuits over monopolies? I added 'based on content' in clause 4 just to clarify that the newspapers and television stations can not be shut down *based on content*
As for self-censorship, I added clause 7.

@Gob: Fixed up the quoted clauses with your suggestions.



FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Artistic Freedom,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

IN ADDITION to 'Artistic Freedom', 'Freedom of Assembly' 'Freedom of Press' and 'Universal Bill of Rights' resolutions,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) libel or slander
b) any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied, against any group or individual.
c) The publication of classified materials.

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by national governments based on content except when allowed in Clause 3.

5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a) The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b) The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c) The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

7) VOLUNTARY self-censorship is not prohibited.


As for the UBR thing... :( *headdesk*

Turns out all the time, we can't restrict free speech on anything at all. Not for libel. Not for national security. Not even for hate crimes. I'm sure the lack of restrictions also covers censorship and restriction of the press too. It's too broad, even broader than Lib. desired. And it was all summed up in one sentence?We may not be able to "restrict free speech" as long as it is just speech.. If I talk about raping your women and burning your home that is speech... when I rape your women and burn your home that is a crime and I will hang for it. Unless there is some place in this that stops us from making laws to prevent rape and arson or any crimes.

That old saying talk is cheap is okay but action on that talk will cost you time or a chance to test a rope if the crime is serious enough.

We believe the two active clauses: 3 Prohibits ; 4 Mandates : of this cover any problems of anyone acting on what they may say they going to do. As by this: any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied, against any group or individual.they can't say it or print it or show it... I'd rather have them able to blow off steam calling folks names and threatening than keeping it to themselves and then just going into a mall, school, church, arena, or whatever and killing folks. As it those who strike in silence that do the most damage and kill more than those that just talk and never act on it. Also the old thing loose lips sink ships,,, goes to hanging criminals and terrorists if they speak out to much..

Also in clause 5 it only gives the IFSU a right to examine laws thus any and all military or other classified materials it can't examine unless it is granted by a nation the clearance to do so. Even if it did it can only adise and nothing says one has to take their advice. The only unclear thing is just what type laws will it be reviewing here. Laws on rape and murder have no place for the IFSU to examine... as they deal not with speech... or any media or printed materials... they deal with rape and murder. Also traffic and other civil laws like burn laws that require permits and restricts what can be burned where and what safety must be present to burn; as these do not deal with speech.. but with public safety issues, and can be protected by this under the clause that covers violance.

Raping and murdering is not speech or expression, it's RAPE and MURDER.

Ok, below is what might be our final draft. Clause 7 has been changed.
People have said that this does duplicate the some previous resolutions but not to the extent of being illegal, therefore this resolution will be submitted anyway.

A TG campaign will be started soon.


FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Artistic Freedom,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

IN ADDITION to 'Artistic Freedom', 'Freedom of Assembly' 'Freedom of Press' and 'Universal Bill of Rights' resolutions,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) libel or slander
b) any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied, against any group or individual.
c) The publication of classified materials.

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by national governments based on content except when allowed in Clause 3.

5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a) The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b) The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c) The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

7) VOLUNTARY individual self-censorship, or closure of media is not prohibited.

Well, no, you haven't '[f]ixed up the libel thing', because you've now removed any definition, which surely means nations with overly broad libel laws have been exempted. I'm not asking for a particularly legalistic definition: just something like 'a false statement that causes harm (to the reputation of)'. (Note: I strongly recommend getting advice on a better definition from someone else, given I myself know very little about defamation.) And 'libel or slander' can surely be changed to 'defamation'.

The 'based on content' addition does indeed allay the concerns about activities not related to content.

Clause 7 hasn't, however, met the challenge. Imagine the following: a writer turns out an article; the editorial board (who will be the ones who get sued) decide to retract it. That doesn't seem to fit under 'individual self-censorship' (my italics); but it's perfectly reasonable practice and isn't a suppression of free speech.

Finally, the IFSU is utterly pointless; can it. An organization with no powers doesn't need a UN mandate; Reporters Without Borders would surely serve just as well (or, might we suggest, the Quodite NGO Censorship Watch).

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Too late, I've already TG'd up to page 204 of UN delegates ;)

EDIT: The first half (pg1-321) of UN Delegates have been TG'd :D

I hope you have the author's permission to do this, because if not, you could have your proposal deleted. It doesn't matter how many delegates you telegram.

If the mandate of UBoR is absolute and doesn't allow restrictions on anything, how did we ever pass Freedom of Assembly? Then again, all UBoR does is "endorse" these freedoms, so if you wanted to get wanky, you could argue that it doesn't protect anything at all. Freedom of Press, if you actually read it, really doesn't protect anything.

To my mind there has been no comprehensive UN ban on censorship yet.

As soon as my time machine starts working again, I'll happily go back to August 2003 and submit an "insta-repeal" of UNR #26. Till then, you're just going to have to live with it.

Not binding? Phew! That'll teach me not to look at these things when I'm feeling half-asleep...
Okay, so in that case what we have is arguably an amendment (from "You should" to "You must") rather than an actual duplication, but still illegal.

Wrt 'Freedom of Press', I was mainly looking at its clause about promoting public access to the news media which -- again -- had a stronger counterpart in at least one (now superceded?) draft of this proposal.

Okay, so in that case what we have is arguably an amendment (from "You should" to "You must") rather than an actual duplication, but still illegal.So was Freedom of Assembly an illegal "amendment" too, or are you just grasping at straws here?

I hope you have the author's permission to do this, because if not, you could have your proposal deleted. It doesn't matter how many delegates you telegram.

Yeah, he got my implict premission to do this sort of thing, Omigodtheykilledkenny. After all, I am technically not the author of this, and he did modified it enough from my original intent to have it be seen as original, altough I did like to have 'co-writer' as a part of it.

I don't like the resolution, but I stress, I was merely making recommendations to Libristaruia on what to put. So I don't really consider it my resolution, so I don't want the mods to delete it.

Let just see if this get to quorom. However I guess this does make a point that rushing into proposals doesn't really lead to good ideas getting passed in the UN.

Turns out all the time, we can't restrict free speech on anything at all. Not for libel. Not for national security. Not even for hate crimes. I'm sure the lack of restrictions also covers censorship and restriction of the press too. It's too broad, even broader than Lib. desired. And it was all summed up in one sentence.?We agree one should not be stopped from talking and just saying you going to burn and rape others but then it not restricting them from saying they going to do it if you hang them after it been done, or catch them trying to do it and hang them.. Speech is a vocal form of communication not burning a home or flag or raping and killing..

Look at what folks go to prison for if they are drunk and kill in a car. It not because they drunk and in a car as many get caught at that and are properly punished for driving drunk... the same goes for murder... it not drinking that gets them hung it murder, rape, arsen, or actual violations of existing laws to protect folks. You can yell and cuss at any time you want, disturb others and then you violate existing laws, do it on property you were not invited onto and you trespassing, use force to stop others from telling you to leave it assault. So say anything just don't 'practice what you preach' if it breaks a law... or violates another's rights under the protections you may have and them. m Same with guns one can own a gun if they follow the laws to do so and then keep following the laws of use, use it to kill diner and okay unless the animal killed it not yours and belongs to another person and you had no right to kill it... murder another person and hang for murder not having a gun.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=speech

100 approvals! 14 more to go....:cool:

How many hours do we have left? It's Tuesday 18th 10:30pm in Melbourne Australia! :( What timezone is NS in?

OOC=
I suppose that, in some way of defending this resolution, even though we do have some reservations on it. I am hopefully arguing on behalf of Librustralia:

Clause 7 hasn't, however, met the challenge. Imagine the following: a writer turns out an article; the editorial board (who will be the ones who get sued) decide to retract it. That doesn't seem to fit under 'individual self-censorship' (my italics); but it's perfectly reasonable practice and isn't a suppression of free speech.

Technically, the resolution only prohibits national governments from censorship, so actually, the editorial board can censor stuff too. And, since the newspaper is the one publishing the paper, it can be said to be excerising its free speech to promote the viewpoint of the writer, so it can retract an article because it was the one who promoted the article in the first place.

The writer himself can still write his article and create his own newspaper that can publish it, but he'll be the one who get sued, not the first newspaper himself.

Finally, the IFSU is utterly pointless; can it. An organization with no powers doesn't need a UN mandate; Reporters Without Borders would surely serve just as well (or, might we suggest, the Quodite NGO Censorship Watch).

I guess that is true, however, establishing such a commitee at the very least tells the fluffies that something is being done. Few people only read the resolutions, even fewer can read about RPs of the Quodite NGO Censorship Watch.

It was an in-character post. Nonetheless:

Technically, the resolution only prohibits national governments from censorship, so actually, the editorial board can censor stuff too. And, since the newspaper is the one publishing the paper, it can be said to be excerising its free speech to promote the viewpoint of the writer, so it can retract an article because it was the one who promoted the article in the first place.
No, it doesn't. It defines censorship as that enacted 'by a controlling group or body', not 'by a national government'; an editorial board is clearly a controlling group with regard to their newspaper.
The writer himself can still write his article and create his own newspaper that can publish it, but he'll be the one who get sued, not the first newspaper himself.
So completely not my point it's comical. My point is that the newspaper is prohibited from retracting an article in the first place.
I guess that is true, however, establishing such a commitee at the very least tells the fluffies that something is being done. Few people only read the resolutions, even fewer can read about RPs of the Quodite NGO Censorship Watch.
Let's leave aside your ridiculous sneering at 'the fluffies'. No, it doesn't tell anyone that anything 'is being done', because the IFSU has no powers, just the ability to offer a few presumably flatly ignored recommendations. My point is that it has exactly the same power (none) as an independent NGO, and hence it makes more sense to leave it to them.

No, it doesn't. It defines censorship as that enacted 'by a controlling group or body', not 'by a national government'; an editorial board is clearly a controlling group with regard to their newspaper.

3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) libel or slander
b) any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied, against any group or individual.
c) The publication of classified materials.

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by national governments based on content except when allowed in Clause 3.

Those are the only two clauses that actually prohibits censorship, and in both clauses, national governments is referred to here. Editoral boards can indeed censor, as the ban on censorship only apply to governments.

Let's leave aside your ridiculous sneering at 'the fluffies'. No, it doesn't tell anyone that anything 'is being done', because the IFSU has no powers, just the ability to offer a few presumably flatly ignored recommendations. My point is that it has exactly the same power (none) as an independent NGO, and hence it makes more sense to leave it to them.

1) When I say fluffy, I don't mean to sneer at them, I actually like them.
2) I admit that it would have been better to get rid of the clause, but it's going to be there for a while, as this resolution has gotten to quorom. So I am forced to defend it. The IFSU has no powers, but it is allowed access to all memberstates (via an office), which by itself, allows it power over other NGOs who the government can restrict access to. In the end, it is better to get rid of it, but I see no harm in it in there, especially since now it's can't be gotten rid of.

2) I admit that it would have been better to get rid of the clause, but it's going to be there for a while, as this resolution has gotten to quorom. So I am forced to defend it. ... In the end, it is better to get rid of it, but I see no harm in it in there, especially since now it's can't be gotten rid of.You (or actually Librustralia, who seems to have scampered leaving you the bag) have just under twelve hours to request the proposal be removed from queue to allow corrections to the proposal. We urge you to do so. Those delegates approving, will generally be willing to reapprove an improved version.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

You (or actually Librustralia, who seems to have scampered leaving you the bag) have just under twelve hours to request the proposal be removed from queue to allow corrections to the proposal. We urge you to do so. Those delegates approving, will generally be willing to reapprove an improved version.

As much as I would like to do that sort of thing, I, um, don't feel like I can. After all, I do firmly believe that Librustralia was the one who really made the proposal, and not me, who only offered suggestions and co-written the whole thing. He's the only one who can pull the request off.

I am however urging Librustralia to pull the proposal, but I do think maybe he wouldn't want to do such a thing. I'm so sorry.


I do however contend that Librustralia did not leave me the bag, he seems really eager to do and post, so he's likely enough going to come here and defend his proposal to me.

Felix Dzerzhinsky and his dog Mister Jones (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=677&view=findpost&p=7161165) approach the podium. Felix addreses the assembled masses. Jones paces back and forth while snorting and growling at the assembly.

I will not bother with a detailed analysis of this proposal, but only point out its major flaws.
1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) REAFFIRMS the right of all persons to free speech, provided that said free speech does not call for violence,
As pointed out earlier by the Quodite delegation, your definition, accompanied by the following clause, would seem to cover such bodies as editorial boards at newspapers and magazines, as well as in the broadcast media. You have basically given carte blanche to every writer, every reporter, every commentator in UN nations to have their opinions appear in print, regardless of the wishes of their employers.
3) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) libel or slander
b) any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied, against any group or individual.
But then you turn around and provide national governments with a loophole large enough to allow censorship of any speech, for any reason.

Who decides what constitutes libel or slander? Under the terms of this proposal, national governments do. And they are free to define libel and slander as they see fit.

Who decides what constitutes "any threat of or call to violence, either overt or implied"? National governments do. An "overt or implied" call to violence can be defined as just about anything.

4) MANDATES that all print, television and radio media, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by national governments based on content except when allowed in Clause 3.
What about the internet? Under the terms of this proposal we can shut it down, yes?
5) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a) The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b) The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c) The IFSU is allowed to support any group's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each member state.
This is pointless, the IFSU is powerless and the IFSU's "one office" is located in the men's restroom at the bus terminal.

So. We have here a proposed free speech resolution which:
1. Prevents privately owned media establishments from exercising editorial control over their publications.
2. Allows national governments to censor speech at will using the loopholes provided in 3 a and b.
3. Allows national governments to censor or completely shut down the internet.
4. Establishes a committee which is powerless and resides in the men's restroom at the bus terminal.

This makes for some interesting scenarios, does it not?
1. Newspaper attempts to publish anti-government editorial. Government defines it as a "libelous, slanderous implied call to violence" and censors it.
2. Government pays a writer at the same newspaper to compose a strongly pro-government editorial. The paper's editorial board can't do anything about it and the article is published.

Well done!

*spoken to the dog* Come Jones, it is time for your bath!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

As pointed out earlier by the Quodite delegation, your definition, accompanied by the following clause, would seem to cover such bodies as editorial boards at newspapers and magazines, as well as in the broadcast media. You have basically given carte blanche to every writer, every reporter, every commentator in UN nations to have their opinions appear in print, regardless of the wishes of their employers.

Wait, wait, wait! *facepalms*

I can see why you are confused that it restricts editoral boards, but I like to stress it doesn't do that at all. As you can see, clause 1 defines Free Speech and Clause 2 reaffirm the rights of people to speak. In other words, it is just the same as the UBR in that regard.

But how exactly does the reaffirming of rights actually protect them? It doesn't. It is only by restricting censorship can we protect this right. We stress the ideal that everyone should speak, but we only provide enforcement of such an ideal of freedom of speech to national governments, any editoral board can do whatever they want to newspapers.

Clause 3 is important, and it restricts the National Government from committing censorship, and only the National Government. Many resolutions protect the freedom of speech, but does not restrict censorship, and this is what this resolution does, prohibit censorship by the National Government. It does not, in any way, shape, or form, restrict editoral boards, nor was it intended to. Even Clause 7 states that, if editoral boards want to censor their own newspaper (as it is voluntary censorship of their own newspaper), they can. [A person has the right to say what they want, but the newspaper has the right to decide if they can publish it or not. Not publishing something is NOT censorship, as long as said person can go and find a way to go and promote his ideas out of the newspaper, which I am sure he could very well do.]

Any government can always go around and find loopholes within definitions, and redefine things to mean whatever they want, so blaming a free speech resolution for such a thing seems a bit unfair. We like to close loopholes, but it is hard to actually get rid of them entirely. But there are many nations who will not use the loopholes, and who will follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Please, please, please, try to listen to me. /sigh.

As much as I would like to do that sort of thing, I, um, don't feel like I can. After all, I do firmly believe that Librustralia was the one who really made the proposal, and not me, who only offered suggestions and co-written the whole thing. He's the only one who can pull the request off.

If there's some interest in having this pulled, time's a-wastin'. It goes live sometime today or tonight.

Approvals: 131 (Yacare, Island Union, WZ Forums, One World Alliance, Vaantage, NeuEuropa, Letonija, Sharland, Minyos, Zuper dogs scout, Alakami, Eastern Baltia, Orea Oceana, Palovana, Ryule, Auevia, Arden BeBe, Worldia555, Dr Ron E Paul, WobblyReligiousFreaks, Sea Dolphin Lovers, TheDeadEye, GodKing I, The Weebs, Greroanceland, Rantchess, ShinyHappyUnion, COMUNI, Canadian Rockies, 46566, Ventei, Newtopia and Frindes, South Lorenya, Cardinal Chase, Unified United Union, Sci, Slacktonovich, The Artic Republics, Basketball 101, Intelligenstan, Nanepb, Peso_lover, Cylea, Hades359, Starbuggers, Skimpy Underwear, Leo jack, Aissurus, Misplaced States, Eco-Anarchism, Alpacadom, Ellenburg, Fruity Oat, Adelie Penguinity, Revesa, Varwolf, The Seventh Realm, Ceclianistic States, Sancte Michael, Thr Darkside, Cool Hippies, Conner Island, Grave Danger, Beninta, Gobbo Power, Hungry martians, Veecom, Free Liberal America, Free Hanover, Warm Water Ports, Inferian, Belarum, Rolly The Great, Drummersland, Khalnar, Lollig, Paleotopia, Psycotia Island, Agoran, Graalium, American China, Panido, Voyles, East Hylia, Euleos, Olayotepec, GameraGirl, Esselldee, Blink Monkey, Scabz, Antrium, Fishyguy, Montav, Azerbajerkistan, Jellydom, Tajikijaditistan, Wee Free peeps, Burger me, Kelh, Monkeys with TommyGuns, The Digital Network, Royal Wave, Hisnot3, Westconda, Wuv and Huggles, Gates of Fire, The Talisman, Enalyke, Sabrina The Wise, Norwegion Conservitves, Greater Paxia, Nanisivik, Trekmania, Indian Gangs, Pink basketballs, Teleprompter, West Pacific, Validus Prime, Top Gunners, Popeleoma Del Signe, Monkeydonkey, Expectoration, Nick Butler, Spaz Land, Yderia II, Neenlandopolisia, Jesuistan, Detour Falls, Mergitroy, Caer Bannogg, JJJose)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Wait, wait, wait! *facepalms*

I can see why you are confused that it restricts editoral boards, but I like to stress it doesn't do that at all.Unfortunately the law means what the law says, and not what one wishes, or thought, it said. In this case, given the wording of the resolution, Ambassador Dzerzhinsky is absolutely correct in the effect of the resolution if it passes.

We again urge you to request it pulled before it goes to vote.

--L.T.

Okay. Due to fears of this going to kingdom kong, as well as the belief that Lib. certaintly wouldn't want this law to restrict the freedom of the newspaper, I am hereby forced to, in his name, ask for the resolution to be taken out of Quorom and dropping the proposal so that it can be resubmitted with apporiate changes.

I hope this request get accepted, in time. Thanks.

Okay. Due to fears of this going to kingdom kong, as well as the belief that Lib. certaintly wouldn't want this law to restrict the freedom of the newspaper, I am hereby forced to, in his name, ask for the resolution to be taken out of Quorom and dropping the proposal so that it can be resubmitted with apporiate changes.

I hope this request get accepted, in time. Thanks.

I think you've made a wise decision. I'd rather this not go to the GA floor where it will be hacked to pieces. In the future I would suggest that before you or any other authors submit a proposal for vote, the draft be brought here were it can be refined.

Think of it like this. What if this resolution had passed and we are faced with a very serious absence of civil liberities. Despite what you want it to read, it reads according to the words in it. Always remember that.

Thank you for doing so.

I think you've made a wise decision. I'd rather this not go to the GA floor where it will be hacked to pieces. In the future I would suggest that before you or any other authors submit a proposal for vote, the draft be brought here were it can be refined.

Well, the thing is, I think Lib. posted the final draft of this Act in before Quod came in with his thoughts and when Quod posted his problems, Lib. disregarded them as he was already in the midst of a TG campagin. That was not a very wise thing to do, and I tried to discourage him from doing something like this, but it happened anyway. However, now the crisis is over, let see if this problem can be solved before it get resubmitted.

Okay. So, here is plan of action:
1) Make it clear that censorship by insitutions other than the government is allowed.
2) Start a long list of definitions to close any loopholes the government can use.
3) Don't mention the IFSU.

I hope that I don't have touch this with a 10-foot pole when making the revisions. I know full well watching Lib. here how deveasting the debates are.

I was going to say you need to add to that list something to keep the IFSU office out of the bus station toilet but I see you've already added it.:D

I hereby approve the withdrawal of the Freedom of Speech Act from Quorum for revision as long as we only fix up the wording of the resolution without sneaking in any new "national-security" clauses.

I've started with redefining clause 3:


3) PROHIBITS any institution from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation which includes libel and slander. Defined as communicating untruthful statements claiming or implied to be factual that may harm the reputation of an individual or organization.
b) any overt threat of or call to violence, against any group or individual.
c) The publication of classified materials.


and clause 4:


4) MANDATES that all mediums of communication including television, radio, print and the internet, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 3.

Lib., "national security" is the least of your worries.

I don't think rushing into this thing is going to inspire any confidence. We better take this one very slowly...

Again, stressing that I rather distant myself...

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Artistic Freedom,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, defined as "communicating untruthful statements claiming or implied to be factual that may harm the reputation of an individual or organization"
b) any overt threat of or call to violence, defined as "the destruction of property or injury to any group or individual".
c)The publication of classified materials.

3) MANDATES that all mediums of communication including television, radio, print and the internet, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 2.

4) ALLOWS all organizations, businesses, and media to self-censor their own content.

5) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

I'm going to wait to see if someone can vet this. Hopefully, Clause 4 of this new resolution will ease everyone's mind.

You have to file a GHR if you want it removed, by the way. You can't just rely on the mods to happen upon your forum post. They don't always have the time to read everything.

In this case, somebody already filed a GHR. Having read the requests from both Author and CoAuthor, I'm pulling it.

Good call, both of you. Here's your approvals for your next campaign.

Approvals: 141 (Yacare, Island Union, WZ Forums, One World Alliance, Vaantage, NeuEuropa, Letonija, Sharland, Minyos, Zuper dogs scout, Alakami, Eastern Baltia, Orea Oceana, Palovana, Ryule, Auevia, Arden BeBe, Worldia555, Dr Ron E Paul, WobblyReligiousFreaks, Sea Dolphin Lovers, TheDeadEye, GodKing I, The Weebs, Greroanceland, Rantchess, ShinyHappyUnion, COMUNI, Canadian Rockies, 46566, Ventei, Newtopia and Frindes, South Lorenya, Cardinal Chase, Unified United Union, Sci, Slacktonovich, The Artic Republics, Basketball 101, Intelligenstan, Nanepb, Peso_lover, Cylea, Hades359, Starbuggers, Skimpy Underwear, Leo jack, Aissurus, Misplaced States, Eco-Anarchism, Alpacadom, Ellenburg, Fruity Oat, Adelie Penguinity, Revesa, Varwolf, The Seventh Realm, Ceclianistic States, Sancte Michael, Thr Darkside, Cool Hippies, Conner Island, Grave Danger, Beninta, Gobbo Power, Hungry martians, Veecom, Free Liberal America, Free Hanover, Warm Water Ports, Inferian, Belarum, Rolly The Great, Drummersland, Khalnar, Lollig, Paleotopia, Psycotia Island, Agoran, Graalium, American China, Panido, Voyles, East Hylia, Euleos, Olayotepec, GameraGirl, Esselldee, Blink Monkey, Scabz, Antrium, Fishyguy, Montav, Azerbajerkistan, Jellydom, Tajikijaditistan, Wee Free peeps, Burger me, Kelh, Monkeys with TommyGuns, The Digital Network, Royal Wave, Hisnot3, Westconda, Wuv and Huggles, The Talisman, Enalyke, Sabrina The Wise, Norwegion Conservitves, Greater Paxia, Nanisivik, Trekmania, Indian Gangs, Pink basketballs, Teleprompter, West Pacific, Validus Prime, Top Gunners, Popeleoma Del Signe, Monkeydonkey, Expectoration, Nick Butler, Spaz Land, Yderia II, Neenlandopolisia, Jesuistan, Detour Falls, Mergitroy, Caer Bannogg, JJJose, The States of Cor, The Harvest Lands, Sarejavo, Weissborg, Juggalo2, Sting-, The Commies With Guns, The Highlands Ranch, The Fig Tree, Gates of Fire, Major Buds)

We also might need to make sure comedy is not censored. Even though a parody of something may not be factual, it's intent is to provide entertainment and is therefore not defamation.

We have to say that we disagree with the accusations levelled at the definitions in the submitted version of the proposal, though we welcome the attempt at clarity. Let us take the honoured Comrade Felix's analysis as an example.

As pointed out earlier by the Quodite delegation, your definition, accompanied by the following clause, would seem to cover such bodies as editorial boards at newspapers and magazines, as well as in the broadcast media. You have basically given carte blanche to every writer, every reporter, every commentator in UN nations to have their opinions appear in print, regardless of the wishes of their employers.
Incorrect. The carte blanche that has been is to call the non-appearance of their opinions 'censorship'. While this may be politically embarrassing, it is only governmental censorship that is prohibited. That is made abundantly clear in clauses 2 and 3, and we cannot see a legal reading of the proposal that says otherwise.

The proposal was completely agnostic on the subject of non-governmental organisations censoring themselves, allowing national law (or more likely the lack of it) to decide the subject. With the addition of the new clause 4 that is no longer true, and we are not entirely certain that we like the result. We will have to think about this, and whether it overlaps with "Freedom of Press".

But then you turn around and provide national governments with a loophole large enough to allow censorship of any speech, for any reason.
As the person who suggested 3b, we confess shamefacedly to having had Reasonable Nation Theory colour our thinking to the point of carelessness. We are not certain that the additional definitions that the honoured drafters have offered do not merely shift the point of argument as to what, for example, is or is not defamation. This point, it should be noted, is not confined to 3a and 3b; indeed the authors some while ago commented on the lack of concern which was being expressed about 3c, which is subject to all the same arguments concerning loopholes.

This would seem to be a reasonable use for the otherwise toothless committee created in the submitted version of the proposal. If it were empowered to arbitrate on disputes as to what was legal censorship, then it would finally have a useful purpose in enforcing the spirit of the resolution.

3) MANDATES that all mediums of communication including television, radio, print and the internet, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 2.
We are certain that delegates can continue to mention communication media that the authors have never heard of never mind listed, suggesting that this is the wrong approach. We would suggest that the phrase "including but not limited to" would remove the tension between the "all" at the start of the clause and the never-to-be-complete list.

Actually, on consideration, the clause needs a more complete re-think than that. At the moment it is confused between media of communication and organisations that use such media. A little clarity and (probably) separation might well be of benefit to the resolution.

ETA:
We also might need to make sure comedy is not censored. Even though a parody of something may not be factual, it's intent is to provide entertainment and is therefore not defamation.
That would likely require repealing the unintellegable "Freedom of Humo(u)r", which would be no bad thing on its own.

Okay, I was about to talk about the Freedom of Humor resolution as well. Since FoH covers satire, I don't think we need to mention it.

Okay, another list of things to do before we create a next draft, altough I am going to wait until the other UN delegates speak before I finalize another draft to be considered by the fine delegates here before we continue:

1) Reintroduce the IFSU, but "empowered to arbitrate on disputes as to what was legal censorship", not as some NGO.

2) Adding "not limited to" to Clause 3.

3) Review "Freedom of the Press" to check if it conflicts with Clause 4, furthermore, check to see if Clause 4 is okay or necessary to ensure clarity.

Okay thanks for that, I didn't know we had a FoH act. I've added it to the preamble and 2a now mentions the FoHA.

The IFSU is re-added, with clause 3.


FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Humor act Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Artistic Freedom,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, defined as "communicating untruthful statements claiming or implied to be factual that may harm the reputation of an individual or organization". Forms of communication with a humourous or satirical intent are not considered defecation and are therefore exempt from clause 2 in compliance with the "Freedom of Humour Act".
b) any overt threat of or call to violence, defined as "the destruction of property or injury to any group or individual".
c)The publication of classified materials.

3) MANDATES that all mediums of communication including but not limited to television, radio, print and the internet, regardless of the size and influence of the media institution and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 2.

4) ALLOWS all organizations, businesses, and media to self-censor their own content.

5) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

6) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a)The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b)The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c)The IFSU is allowed to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal censorship.
d)The IFSU is allowed to support any group or individual's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

I don't really know if duplicating all of the the IFSU's non-useful provisions may be needed, mainly due to character space and the fear of 'useless commitees'.

The reason we talked about FoH was because it protected satire or humorous attempts anyway, making it so that all nations have to follow it. So it is better to merely mention it in the preamble, and not talk about it in the operative clauses to save time and make the resolution appear orderly.

And still waiting for other people to speak, to see any more flaws.

Alright, brand new draft, with some extra stuff about FoH taken away, and the spiltting of Clause 3 for clarity. Waiting for a review on it:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Humor, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Artistic Freedom,

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

2) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, defined as "communicating untruthful statements claiming or implied to be factual that may harm the reputation of an individual or organization".
b) any overt threat of or call to violence, defined as "the destruction of property or injury to any group or individual".
c)The publication of classified materials.

3) MANDATES that all mediums of communication including but not limited to television, radio, print and the internet cannot be shut down or restricted by any government.

4) FURTHER MANDATES that any media institution, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 2.

4) ALLOWS all organizations, businesses, and media to self-censor their own content.

5) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

6) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a)The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b)The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c)The IFSU is allowed to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal censorship.
d)The IFSU is allowed to support any group or individual's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

You don't need an arbitration board to rule on what constitutes legal censorship, since censorship and free speech are already defined in the proposal. What's the point of defining these terms for nations to enforce, if the arbitration board can always overrule them? Otherwise, the IFSU is useless, as previously imparted to you, so take it out.

OOC:
Forms of communication with a humourous or satirical intent are not considered defecation...
Oh God, I think I woke the neighbours.

IC:
You don't need an arbitration board to rule on what constitutes legal censorship, since censorship and free speech are already defined in the proposal. What's the point of defining these terms for nations to enforce, if the arbitration board can always overrule them? Otherwise, the IFSU is useless, as previously imparted to you, so take it out.
The IFSU could usefully arbitrate on whether individual cases of censorship met the criteria listed in clause 2, where the definitions we feel add nothing to the protection from abuse that were raised as a concern earlier. While we concur that the proposal does not need both the definitions and the arbitration board, which differ as to which should be dropped.

I'm going to agree with both Gobbannium and OMGTKK. We're going to need to have either the board or the definitions, one or the other. And I think Lib. would rather stick with the arbitration board, to avoid the possiblity of loopholes. So, um, that's what I'm going to go with. Save space.

The definition of censorship and free speech may be needed, just to have an anchor on what exactly is allowed and not for both the board and the nation, but the other definitions of violence and defamation (the kinds of censorship allowed) may likely be removed.

I believe the plural of medium is media, rather than mediums. Unless we are talking about psychics.

Our general impression is that this proposal is still unsure as to what it is really addressing. At times it focuses on official censorship of political dissent; at others it hints at non-political censorship both that practiced by government and by non-government entities.

By mixing and matching, it neither justifies sufficiently either concern or adequately addresses the issue(s).

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT
To avoid the entire “that’s not speech” argument, consider changing “freedom of speech” to “freedom of expression” throughout.

APPLAUDING the United Nations in its promotion of civil rights and freedom of expression, especially with the Universal Bill of Rights, Freedom of Humor, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly and Artistic Freedom,

This strikes us as rank self-congratulation. If the UN has done such a great job that self-backpatting is in order, why is yet another resolution needed? Perhaps a statement as to the fundamental nature of self-expression would be better here?

It also seems to skate fairly close to a house of cards, if not actually opening the door, getting a beer from the frig and pulling up a chair to watch the game.

NOTING WITH DEEP REGRET however that while the resolutions defend free speech, they do not protect against censorship, which can infringe on free speech,

Six of one; half a dozen of the other. Free speech doesn’t exist in the presence of censorship, whether initiated by government or corporate entities. Defending one requires the suppression of the other until a livable balance between the two is achieved. I get the feeling that having failed to adequately define freedom of speech, you’ve opted for the (presumed) easier task of defining censorship.

DEPLORING the various restriction of criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting new ideas from being formed,

Grammar: DEPLORING [no the] various restrictions of criticism

Content: This is mushy and weak. What new ideas? Criticism of what? Political seems to be where you’re headed, if so, say so. Also, restrictions on criticism (of the government) don’t necessarily have the goal of prohibiting new ideas. The goal, plain and simple is to maintain power by controlling the public expression of dissent—the ideas are frequently old, tried and true.

Conversely criticism of the government isn’t the only type of idea censored. Sex, sex, sex is the number one censored topic, with religious topics (laws against blasphemy and heresy for example) rounding out the big three. If only government suppression of political ideas is what’s being addressed here, that needs to be stated much more clearly. If the more wide-ranging censorship is being addressed, it needs justified and clearly addressed.

STATING that a nation that allows for free criticism and exchange of ideas is a nation that will be more able to solve the many problems inherent in its society,

Stating? Where’s your proof? You can “believe”, but this is a matter of opinion and so should not be stated as fact.

Grammar suggestion: Believing that a nation that allows for the free exchange of ideas is a nation more able to solve the problems it faces

Also, no need to insult nations in the process by implying they’re problem-logged wrecks that are too stupid to listen to their citizens’ ideas.

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect the freedom of speech in order to better society in the long term by regulating censorship,

1) DEFINES "free speech" as the inherent human right to express one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship, "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body".

The definition of “free speech” is circular. One doesn’t fear censorship because they fear censorship. One fears punishment or reprisals for expression that isn’t approved of.

You’re also conflating two forms of censorship here. One, the formal censorship practiced by governments in the form of prior restraint, and two, administrative censorship practiced by non-governmental bodies, generally as a result of fear of reprisals (either formal or informal). By linking “censorship” to the non-specific “controlling group or body” rather than to government entities, and by including your definitions in the active clauses rather than preamble, you continue to create unnecessary problems within the text of the document.

2) PROHIBITS national governments from committing censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, defined as "communicating untruthful statements claiming or implied to be factual that may harm the reputation of an individual or organization".
b) any overt threat of or call to violence, defined as "the destruction of property or injury to any group or individual".
c)The publication of classified materials.

2) Does one "commit" censorship? One commits acts of censorship. One censors. The verb "commit" and noun "censorship" don’t directly fit.

2b) Rather than overt, we suspect you mean “imminent and immediate” with possibly a “credible” thrown in for good measure. Re: “...or injury to any group or individual.” The exposure of corruption of an individual or group very clearly “injures” that group or individual, but we doubt if you really want to prevent that kind of “injury” or even define it as violence.

You might want to use something besides “publication” linked indelibly as it is with text. “Intentional distribution” might work.

3) MANDATES that all mediums of communication including but not limited to television, radio, print and the internet cannot be shut down or restricted by any government.

Grammar: To avoid the media/medium brouhaha: MANDATES that all communication media, including but not limited to,

Hmmm, so that XXXX television station that Radio Free Bigtopia beams in, the one with all the nekkidness, we can’t touch that? Can’t, say, block it from the airwaves during kiddie hour after school?

Article 3 also most blatantly contradicts article 2. An “outside the limitations set out in article 2 above” is needed to eliminate the stalemate.

4) FURTHER MANDATES that any media institution, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 2.

4) ALLOWS all organizations, businesses, and media to self-censor their own content.

(Are there two 4)s or did we transpose in error?)

One, we would suggest using “non-governmental entity” to be most inclusive of the types of organizations to be given this protection. Two, if "media institution" is kept... media are organizations, not institutions, though at this early hour, we're not sure if that's evidential or canonical.

Grammar aside, what these entities do with their content isn’t self-censorship. Self-censorship is when one decides not to release something to the public because of fear of formal, legal or economic sanctions. What we suspect you’re referencing here is the exercise of control over one’s own intellectual property.

6) ESTABLISHES the 'International Free Speech Union' (IFSU).
a)The IFSU is allowed to have at least one office in every member state and be allowed to carry out its work without any unreasonable restrictions.
b)The IFSU has the right to review all national laws and make purely advisory recommendations of how best to change those laws in order to protect free speech.
c)The IFSU is allowed to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal censorship.
d)The IFSU is allowed to support any group or individual's right to free speech by working within the legal system of each memberstate.

We agree that the IFSU could play an advisory (only) role in interpreting whether a particular set of circumstances fits the definition of censorship as provided here. However, the binding source of such opinion would be the courts within a nation, thus making the IFSU pretty useless.

6a) “is allowed”, but then again it’s not mandated for all nations making it an optional provision.

6b) the “right to review” is no better than the right this act presumably bestows on the average national denizen, again making the committee pretty useless

6c) “is allowed to arbitrate”... Is the IFSU being set up as a mandatory arbitration council on these type of cases? If so, what is its relationship to the nation’s judicial system? If not, when-who-what triggers the arbitration?

6d) memberstate should be: member state



--L.T.

Hm, considering this new thing, looks to be we either have to choose to be broad (allow all criticism...) or only focus on political criticism. I'm going to let Lib. decide. I currently favor political criticism at the moment.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ACT

REAFFIRMING a person's right to self-expression, as established by previous UN resolutions,

STATING that the fundamental nature of self-expression requires that there would be no censorship or fear of any punishment preventing such person from expressing himself,

DEPLORING various restrictions of political criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting the public expression of dissent,

BELIEVING that a nation that allows for the free exchange of ideas is a nation more able to solve the problems it faces,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect self-expression by regulating censorship,

DEFINING "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a government entity"

1) PROHIBITS government entities from committing acts of political censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, libel, or slander
b) Any imminent and immediate threat of or call to violence that is credible,
c) The intentional distribution of classified materials

2) MANDATES that all communication media, including but not limited to, television, radio, print and the internet cannot be shut down or restricted by any government outside the limitations set out in Clause 1 above.

3) FURTHER MANDATES that any non-governmental entity, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 1.

4) ALLOWS all non-governmental entities to excerise their own control over their intellectual property,

5) ESTABLISHES the 'Self-Expression Arbitration Board' (SEAB), and grants it the power to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal censorship,
a) If anyone has already went through the national court system and still feel dissastifaction at the results, he may appeal to the SEAB for a ruling. The SEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case, the final court ruling stands. If the SEAB arbitrate, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.

6) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

From what I can tell, the possiblity of "nekkidness" may very well be safeguarded by introducing moral decency (or obscenites), but I think you guys protested against that, so I added in the term "political censorship" so that other forms of censorship, like social censorship, is hopefully allowed. Again, this is Lib. final choice on the matter. OOC, the Nat Sov in me is a little seasick.

If this passes, could we expect caveman talk to come back? Oh sorry, I said if this passes not if this is respected....

law-->good
caveman speech come back!-->good
not all people accept both?-->bad

UN laws do not apply to the actual UN building. Though diplomatic courtsery is requested. :)

I think we should allow all criticism for the obvious reasons but also because governments can censor political dissent by claiming it's not political.
For instance, there's a certain religion in a country in RL that the Government of that country is trying to persecute by calling it an "evil cult" even though the reasons are actually political.
Also, it's not just governments that censor, it's some employers too. Eg. There's a few very large corporations in RL that have tried to stamp out any unionization among workers. ;)

Obscenities may be an exception though but we need to define exactly what those obscenities are so governments can't abuse it. Eg. Nudity, sex scenes during childrens' television

OOC:

Oh God, I think I woke the neighbours.
.

LOL! Er... typo. :rolleyes: :D

LOL! Er... typo. :rolleyes: :D

Actually I think that is acceptable. Kind of like saying colour or labour.

OOC: Zarquon, note the underlined word in what I was quoting!

OOC: Zarquon, note the underlined word in what I was quoting!


I see it now. I thought Lib was pointing out that "neighbours" was mispelled.

I think we should allow all criticism for the obvious reasons but also because governments can censor political dissent by claiming it's not political.
... Also, it's not just governments that censor, it's some employers too. Eg. There's a few very large corporations in RL that have tried to stamp out any unionization among workers. ;)

Obscenities may be an exception though but we need to define exactly what those obscenities are so governments can't abuse it. Eg. Nudity, sex scenes during childrens' television.The question is as much whether such things have been (can be?) adequately addressed in your proposal as whether they should be addressed. If, as you indicate, the proposal should be as broad and comprehensive as possible, then the underpinnings for such legislation are still lacking. Governmental censorship is a far different animal than that perpetrated by corporate entities is different than that practiced by religious entities, etc. ad infinitum.

The example you raise of unionization is a prime example of the complexity of the issue, as it took an entire, separate resolution to address workers rights to "express" their wishes with regard to unionization.

For instance, there's a certain religion in a country in RL that the Government of that country is trying to persecute by calling it an "evil cult" even though the reasons are actually political.ooc: Or perhaps said government has determined that said religion isn't a religion at all but an economic enterprise that defrauds its "members". /hijack

Perhaps the best thing to do is to first pass this proposal about political censorship, then, once this gets through, maybe work on a second resolution about nonpolitical censorship. Nonpolitical censorship is a bit more complex, as Rubina said, and therefore deserving of a seperate proposal. And non-government censorship is a far different beast altogether.

Is that a good idea, Librustralia?

And even if you believe that an 'imaginary country' is restricting an 'imaginary religion' due to it either being a 'scam' or due to 'political reasons', that why we got that commitee. The guy doesn't like it, then he goes and ask SEAB for help after he does all those lawsuits. SEAB can decide if the censorship is valid or not, or even refuse to hear the case (At least, that is what I intended for SEAB, of course).

Sounds good to me but non-government censorship isn't necessarily apolitical so maybe we could make this one specifically about government political censorship and a separate one about non-government political or government non-political censorship?

PS. No, not THAT one Rubina, I was thinking of a country a few.. kilometres... to the east. ;)

PS. @ Zarquon: teehee

"For instance, there's a certain religion in a country in RL that the Government of that country is trying to persecute by calling it an "evil cult" even though the reasons are actually political."

ooc: Or perhaps said government has determined that said religion isn't a religion at all but an economic enterprise that defrauds its "members". /hijack

OOC-->
I think we all know what this is referring to!

Bump? Hopefully?

Lib.: Yeah, that is my intention. This resolution about government political censorship, then later on, we'll focus on other forms of censorship.

New draft with definition in clause 1

FREEDOM OF POLITICAL EXPRESSION ACT

REAFFIRMING a person's right to self-expression, as established by previous UN resolutions,

STATING that the fundamental nature of self-expression requires that there would be no censorship or fear of any punishment preventing such person from expressing himself,

DEPLORING various restrictions of political criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting the public expression of dissent,

BELIEVING that a nation that allows for the free exchange of ideas is a nation more able to solve the problems it faces,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect self-expression by regulating censorship,

DEFINING "censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public by a government entity"

1) PROHIBITS government entities from committing acts of political censorship (defined as the suppression of information from the public based on the political intention or view) except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, libel, or slander defined as communicating statements that make a false claim about an individual or organization that would harm that individual or organization's reputation.
b) Any imminent and immediate threat of or call to violence that is credible,
c) The intentional distribution of classified materials.

2) MANDATES that all communication media, including but not limited to, television, radio, print and the internet cannot be shut down or restricted by any government outside the limitations set out in Clause 1 above.

3) FURTHER MANDATES that any non-governmental entity, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 1.

4) ESTABLISHES the 'Self-Expression Arbitration Board' (SEAB), and grants it the power to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal censorship,
a) If anyone has already went through the national court system and still feel dissastifaction at the results, he may appeal to the SEAB for a ruling. The SEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case, the final court ruling stands. If the SEAB arbitrate, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.

5) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

Lib, you might want to take the definition of libel in 1a. The reason we took it out to begin with was because any definition didn't seem to help clarify, and that a definition does not really matter because we have SEAB here to help police this resolution. Plus, it just doesn't seem to fit. As for Clause 1's definition about political censorship, I don't really know. Maybe yes, maybe no, might be better for me to move it up to the preamble. Here's a brand new addition:

FREEDOM OF POLITICAL EXPRESSION ACT

REAFFIRMING a person's right to political self-expression, as established by previous UN resolutions,

STATING that the fundamental nature of self-expression requires that there would be no censorship or fear of any punishment preventing such person from expressing himself,

DEPLORING various restrictions of political criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting the public expression of dissent,

BELIEVING that a nation that allows for the free exchange of ideas is a nation more able to solve the problems it faces,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect self-expression by regulating political censorship,

DEFINING "political censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public based on political intention or view, by a government entity",

1) PROHIBITS government entities from committing acts of political censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, libel, or slander
b) Any imminent and immediate threat of or call to violence that is credible,
c) The intentional distribution of classified materials.

2) MANDATES that all communication media, including but not limited to, television, radio, print and the internet cannot be shut down or restricted by any government outside the limitations set out in Clause 1 above.

3) FURTHER MANDATES that any non-governmental entity, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 1.

4) ESTABLISHES the 'Self-Expression Arbitration Board' (SEAB), and grants it the power to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal political censorship,
a) If anyone has already went through the national court system and still feel dissastifaction at the results, he may appeal to the SEAB for a ruling. The SEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case, the final court ruling stands. If the SEAB arbitrate, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.

5) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.

Hm. No one else objecting. This may be a sign that people might be getting bored...When do you think the next 'tg campagin' for your resolution will begin?

Lib, you might want to take the definition of libel in 1a. The reason we took it out to begin with was because any definition didn't seem to help clarify, and that a definition does not really matter because we have SEAB here to help police this resolution. Plus, it just doesn't seem to fit. As for Clause 1's definition about political censorship, I don't really know. Maybe yes, maybe no, might be better for me to move it up to the preamble. Here's a brand new addition:



Hm. No one else objecting. This may be a sign that people might be getting bored...When do you think the next 'tg campagin' for your resolution will begin?

Ok, let's begin TG'ing on Wednesday :D

Although the bill does seem a lot shorter than before.

You might wish to clarify (and fix the English of) 4a slightly; it isn't completely clear to us that only one party is needed to invoke SEAB rulings, probably just due to sentence ordering. The fact that you find yourself using 'he' is not a good sign in that sentence, but we are too tired at present to have a decent suggestion for recasting it.

Reclarification:

4) ESTABLISHES the 'Self-Expression Arbitration Board' (SEAB), and grants it the power to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal political censorship,
a) Any party to the dispute may appeal to the SEAB to rule on a legal dispute if said party has already went through the national court system and still feel dissastifaction at the results. The SEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case, the final legal ruling stands. If the SEAB arbitrate, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.

Grammar nitpicks:

a) Any party to the dispute may appeal to the SEAB to rule on a legal dispute if said party has already gone through the national court system and still feels dissastifaction at the results. The SEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case[delete comma] the final legal ruling stands. If the SEAB arbitrates, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.

As an alternative to that last one, "If the SEAB agrees to arbitrate..." or similar might be better.

Thanks for the nitpicks.

a) Any party to the dispute may appeal to the SEAB to rule on a legal dispute if said party has already gone through the national court system and still feels dissastifaction at the results. The SEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case the final legal ruling stands. If the SEAB agrees to arbitrate, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #36
Freedom of Humor
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The orion nebula
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.Fell on this and when read the bolded/underlined section thought about this. Title here is bit confusing but believe some time back this came up in another debate on Freedom of Speech.. because of the clause noted.

Then it may have been brought up in debate on sentient beings as we are not sure which it was brought up with.

Only reason Freedom of Humor popped up was due to fear that nations might restrict the right to 'humor', but with FoH, we don't need to mention about protecting humor.

The preamble you underlined doesn't seem to conflict at all, and in fact, is pretty confusing. What it does seem to say is that there are enlightned nations, and these enlightned nations believe that freedom of speech is important, therefore, the UN must follow these enlightened nations and do whatever it does. This line of argumentaion might make many delegates in this room pretty upset, but it's a line of argument, and not an operative clause restricting future legalisation.
--Dr. Bob.

Okay, the TG campaign is about to begin.

This will be the final version of the FoPE Act to be submitted to the NSUN.


FREEDOM OF POLITICAL EXPRESSION ACT

REAFFIRMING a person's right to political self-expression, as established by previous UN resolutions,

STATING that the fundamental nature of self-expression requires that there would be no censorship or fear of any punishment preventing such person from expressing himself,

DEPLORING various restrictions of political criticism by some nations with the goal of prohibiting the public expression of dissent,

BELIEVING that a nation that allows for the free exchange of ideas is a nation more able to solve the problems it faces,

SEEKING therefore to promote and protect self-expression by regulating political censorship,

DEFINING "political censorship" as "the removal or withholding of information from the public based on political intention or view, by a government entity",

1) PROHIBITS government entities from committing acts of political censorship except in the following cases:
a) Defamation, libel, or slander
b) Any imminent and immediate threat of or call to violence that is credible,
c) The intentional distribution of classified materials

2) MANDATES that all communication media, including but not limited to, television, radio, print and the internet cannot be shut down or restricted by any government outside the limitations set out in Clause 1 above.

3) FURTHER MANDATES that any non-governmental entity, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on content except when allowed in Clause 1.

4) ESTABLISHES the 'United Nations Self-Expression Arbitration Board' (UNSEAB), and grants it the power to arbitrate on legal disputes between individuals, organizations and the state on what constitutes legal political censorship,
a) Any party to the dispute may appeal to the UNSEAB to rule on a legal dispute if said party has already gone through the national court system and still feels dissastifaction at the results. The UNSEAB has the right to refuse to arbitrate, in which case the final legal ruling stands. If the UNSEAB agrees to arbitrate, then the decision of the SEAB is final and is binding on all parties.
b)As well as United Nations workers, any member of the public is permitted to work for the UNSEAB as a volunteer. The opinions of all citizens shall be taken into equal consideration.

5) ENCOURAGES free and open debate between various political ideologies and points of view.



OOC: EDIT: Argh. The title won't fit in the box! Shall we change it to "Freedom of Political Speech" or "Political Speech Freedom Act"?

Freedom of Political Speech seems okay enough. A bit worried about Clause 2 and 3 being construed to mean prohibiting all forms of censorship: Probraly best to add in "political" just to make sure.

3) FURTHER MANDATES that any non-governmental entity, regardless of its size or influence, and whether it supports or criticizes the government, cannot be shut down or censored by any government based on political content except when allowed in Clause 1.

Maybe. It might not be needed, but I am somewhat worried. Still, SEAB will be of much use for this resolution...

TG campaign complete, and i see someone's made their own freedom of expression proposal. >.>

EDIT: WTF!

TG campaign complete, and i see someone's made their own freedom of expression proposal. >.>

EDIT: WTF!

That would be OMGTKK. Don't worry, it looks like he purposely left out parts about free speech so it wouldn't run over yours.

That would be OMGTKK. Don't worry, it looks like he purposely left out parts about free speech so it wouldn't run over yours.

Oh. Huh. Didn't realize that.

Well, either way, good job OMGTKK. I like your proposal a lot. :)

That would be OMGTKK. Don't worry, it looks like he purposely left out parts about free speech so it wouldn't run over yours.Not necessarily, though a moderator opinion on whether or not the one duplicates the other might be useful at this point.

It didn't make it :( We'll re-submit it after that mod-ruling.

No mod ruling will be forth coming due to the unfortunate loss of OMGTKK's fine and great resolution.

This is a bump to see if Librustralia will be resubmitting it.