NationStates Jolt Archive

Free Expression Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: Convinced that all persons bear the inherent right to express political, ideological, religious, cultural, social, moral and ethical views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Commending extant legislation on this subject, affirming and guaranteeing rights to free expression in some media;

Nonetheless determined that freedom of expression remains an essential human right deserving of international protection,

Be it therefore resolved:

Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction.

Member nations are empowered to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.

For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.Constructive comments welcome. I was going to give Cdr. Chiang a break for the New Year, but it doesn't look like that's happening now.

A well written and sensible Resolution on the subject of free speech, which I am proud to have given my approval to. I congratulate the government of the Federal Republic and hope to see it at vote, and passed, very soon.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Dear [Delegate Name],

I am writing to inform you of an an alternative to the "Free Expression Act" called the "Freedom of Political Speech Act" and seek your support on this matter and hope you choose to endorse this proposal over the (plagiarised) Freedom of Expression Act. The FoEA includes active clauses and definitions, and reduces the likelihood of loopholes from occuring. The FEA on the other hand is broad, has no active clauses and is really just a recommendation. Not only that, just about any form of state censorship could be justified under the FEA.

The reason this proposal is called "Freedom of Political Speech" is because there will be a seperate proposal dealing with Social Censorship - a whole different ballgame alltogether and we want to give both types of censorship as much attention and detail as possible to prevent loopholes.

If you approve the Freedom of Political Speech Act, I strongly urge you to disapprove the Free Expression Act. ...

Thank you and have a happy new year!

Citizen of LibrustraliaWe'd like to thank the Librustralians for using our proposal as occasion to explode in inexplicable, disproportionate, opportunistic and dishonest rage. In particular we'd care to address the following risible passages:

...hope you choose to endorse this proposal over the (plagiarised) Freedom of Expression Act."Plagiarized"? Really? If you'd point out what exactly in our proposal text was knowingly stolen from yours, or even paraphrased, we will happily withdraw our proposal. Addressing the same idea does not equal "plagiarism," you know -- although it is rather ironic that a nation purporting to lecture others on the meaning of free speech doesn't even know what "plagiarism" means.

"Ironic," at least, in the Alanis Morissette sense.

Donchya think?

[OOC: Ugh, and it sort of alerts me to the fact that academic fraud shouldn't be protected speech, either. Fuck.]

The FoEA includes active clauses and definitions, and reduces the likelihood of loopholes from occuring. The FEA on the other hand is broad, has no active clauses and is really just a recommendation.1. Yes, our proposal is "broad"; does that necessarily make it ineffectual? One can author legislation to the most precise specifications and still produce unworkable law. Eon Convention comes to mind...

2. "No active clauses"? Did you happen to glance over the very first operative clause? "Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction." That should take care of that last allegation of ineffectiveness, also: Specifically stating that member states are "required" to protect free-speech rights is by no stretch of the imagination a "recommendation." Member states are not "recommended" to uphold free expression, they are required to.

Moreover, if you are so convinced that this legislation is overly broad, vague and ineffective, then it doesn't really rub up against yours, now does it? So what's the point of pressuring delegates to pull their approvals? Your tactics are more likely to turn delegates off rather than rally them to your cause.

3. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that censorship is the only option governments have to stifle free expression. Simply telling newspaper editors, "No, no, you can't say that" is not the extent to which governments can prevent unsavory speech from reaching the masses. There's also intimidation, threats, violence, murder, "disappearances," imprisonment, kidnapping loved ones, the list goes on and on. Some of these things may be covered already under Freedom of Conscience, but it doesn't hurt to cover all bases just in case, does it?

Now you see why a "broad" mandate isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

"You know, I wouldn't be suprised if I, and the rest of the UN, vote for both resolutions."
--Dr. Bob.

OOC: I support this resolution. There are differences, to be sure, but I think in the end, your resolution is a bit better-written and may be seen as more effective, while at the same time not creating SEAB. And I don't want Librustralia turning off delegates as well.

I am trying to ease tensions and ensure this doesn't boil over to something else, but...er.

We will almost certainly support this proposal when it comes to vote. We have a question, however: the right only applies to individuals. What about a union, or a political party, or an unincorporated business: would they also be protected, or would it simply be their individual members? Our nation doesn't particularly accede to 'group rights', but we thought we'd ask anyway.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Admittedly, that is a detail we overlooked. There is nothing to stop groups from endorsing the views and opinions voiced by individual members, however. Hopefully that will cover any perceived wrinkle there. ~Cdr. Chiang

Approvals: 114 (Iron Felix, Ventei, Ellenburg, Neo Ozia, The Voltarum, TheDeadEye, Sovietskey, South Lorenya, Montav, Gates of Fire, Kavii, Hisnot3, Geckx, WZ Forums, Aleeworld, Axorian, Mathoides, Monkeys with TommyGuns, Rhydychen, Free Liberal America, Mergitroy, Sancte Michael, Fraseringtonstan, Akavira, The Artic Republics, Niatland, Basketball 101, Intangelon, Agent Death and Blu, Niveus Vesica, Latislavia, Peso_lover, Nodist, The Seventh Realm, Cardinal Chase, Oblivion Curse, Greendem, Ithania, Esselldee, Belarum, Emporia Wade, Greroanceland, Vista Maxima, Wonder Land City, The Apathy, No Taxes, The Feather, Parahiyangan, The Narnian Council, Polynices, Palovana, Hades359, Antrium, Neo Nibu, Rubina, Something orOther, Ferrannova, NewTexas, Greater Paxia, Disillusioned Peoples, Ruritania, Besniche, Jedi States, Njeering, Aktaeon, -Led Zeppelin-, Wuv and Huggles, Dokta, Spaz Land, Wabba Wabba, Aquaya, Graalium, The Talisman, Nurdia, Worldia555, Wild Lands of North, Crados, Sci, Caring State, Derbb, Black Empire, Cylea, Erotic Exotic Etopia, Factoid, Keelon, Avda, Chimey, Labaigo, Homieville, Charlotte Ryberg, Letonija, Upper Urs, New Old New New York, 46566, Furira, Audland, Zuper dogs scout, Bespoke, Lorique, Great British Islands, Esoteric Thought, Kevin Hunt, Dashanzi, Esbat, The Sacred Avocado, MGLKF, Zauberdragon, Tabitha Ann, Norwegion Conservitves, The Earthen People, Tlapaniacan, Jason-shire, Juntohaptra, Caer Bannogg)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Damn, that was fast. I think we're setting records for the shortest time on the proposals list.

We find ourselves somewhat annoyed to feel unable to support this measure, since it contains a flaw that Commander Chiang herself pointed out to the Librustralian delegation: who decides? While we could well imagine courts or similar legal authorities deciding when one individual defames another as they would for normal legal cases, is it reasonable for them to be the determiners when the accusation is of defamation of the government, particularly in those cases where there are already fundamental objections that the judiciary is indistinguishable from the executive? Who can verify that material classified for national security purposes does indeed have a national security purpose? And who, most dangerously, determines what is obscene? Many a campaign of discrimination has hidden behind such a pseudo-moral facade, and we are unwilling to grant even the scent of legitimacy to such.

We much admire the broad and sweeping intent of this proposal. It is such a shame that its very broadness together with this unanswered question lead it to commit the very errors that its author so rightly castigated other drafters for.

Well, for one, I'm sure I don't follow when you say we castigated other drafters over the "who decides" issue. Two, "government institutions and political leaders" are excepted on the defamation clause, mostly because defaming the government or defaming politicians is not a crime. Three, this proposal does not outlaw any of these things; it simply doesn't extend international protection to some narrow areas, including pornography. The language in all cases has been tailored to be about as clear and precise as it can be to instruct nations as to what manners of expression are protected and what are not, in order to prevent abuse.

Finally, I really don't know how you expect anyone to verify whether or not a government has classified only the appropriate documents. If material has been blocked from public consumption, it's simply blocked, and there's no way around that -- unless, of course, you'd prefer we force all nations to release all classified materials, or better yet, impanel a UN commission to review all nationally classified materials worldwide and decide for member nations what information should and should not be kept classified. Oh, that would be lovely.

Admittedly, that is a detail we overlooked. There is nothing to stop groups from endorsing the views and opinions voiced by individual members, however. Hopefully that will cover any perceived wrinkle there. ~Cdr. ChiangIf laws restrict individuals from doing something then they can't get together to do it and not as individuals be free from being charged with said crimes.. Otherwise we open the door to many problems.. I as a single individual walk into a place and start killing people to express my dislike for that group or an individual in the group am subject to the laws I break. Getting several friends and family that agree with me to also go does not exempt me from my crimes or them from their crimes. I as an individual write nasty things about somebody or go through a council that then publishes it as part of their magizine... When what is expressed are lies and hurt the person written about causing them problems, thus we; as individuals; all are responsable for our actions to harm this other person or group and shall pay for the crimes. Same if I get others to protest a place and we advocate violance againt those working there or who might go there... Be I one person doing this or a group each individual is subject alone to the laws..



Also why is it that if I lie about a private citizen and do harm to them they are protected and should he run for an office and get elected and said is said of him and it truely a lie is he still not protected? The idea of you are in the 'public eye' to us is no reason to allow folks to spread lies on anyone.. Those who do should face one laws and be punished under it, the victum is not being tried the one does the crime is the only one being tried and has to pay for their crimes.

If comes to be told First Toilet Scrubber of Cavirra uses Muldorian Arsewipe not Cavirrian Buttsander and it a lie then those who spread it will be dealt with as individuals not some political radical group working for the Cavirrian Buttsander Company.

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
Um, uh, just a query. To what does the exception apply? Does this mean political institutions and leaders are allowed to defame others, or does it mean they are acceptable targets for defamatory speech?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with either of those interpretations, and would like to know more before coming to a decision.

~ Hari Desana

concerning this
defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness

Does this imply that one can use false information or raising untruthful accusations against government institutions and political leaders?

Um, uh, just a query. To what does the exception apply? Does this mean political institutions and leaders are allowed to defame others, or does it mean they are acceptable targets for defamatory speech?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with either of those interpretations, and would like to know more before coming to a decision.It's the latter -- and it follows a long-standing interpretation of laws governing defamation. [OOC: For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly thrown out defamation lawsuits filed by government leaders and agencies (even Rev. Falwell!), because allowing such suits to stand would stifle citizens' ability to criticize the government, or else strongly discourage it.]

Ok firstly, I would like to apologise to the omigodtheykilledkenny delegation for my TG and any offense it may have caused.

I just felt that you may have submitted the FEA to stop the FPSA from reaching the floor as you submitted it just as the FSPA was about to be submitted without even posting a forum post about it. That's what I thought at the time. It was a knee-jerk reaction and I'm sincerely sorry.

And plagiarism... At the time of the writing of the TG, I thought some parts of your proposal were very similar to the FPSA, notably parts of the preamble and the definitions. However, I would like to apologise for that statement too.



Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction.

Your proposal is listed as "mild". It doesn't require governments to do anything, there is no way to enforce it or check to see if governments are doing their job.

I think the FEA and FSPA appeal to different types of governments and that may be a good thing.


3. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that censorship is the only option governments have to stifle free expression. Simply telling newspaper editors, "No, no, you can't say that" is not the extent to which governments can prevent unsavory speech from reaching the masses. There's also intimidation, threats, violence, murder, "disappearances," imprisonment, kidnapping loved ones, the list goes on and on. Some of these things may be covered already under Freedom of Conscience, but it doesn't hurt to cover all bases just in case, does it?


When did I say that? Intimidation, threats, violence, murder and censorship are all part of state-initiated human rights abuses but this is about censorship specifically.


Good luck and congrats on reaching quorum.

Yours Sincerely,

Citizen of Librustralia

I just felt that you may have submitted the FEA to stop the FPSA from reaching the floor as you submitted it just as the FSPA was about to be submitted without even posting a forum post about it. That's what I thought at the time.To be honest, your suspicions may not have been completely unfounded. However, as I said before, a moderator ruling on whether your proposal is duplication (once this passes) would be useful.

Your proposal is listed as "mild". It doesn't require governments to do anything, there is no way to enforce it or check to see if governments are doing their job.Sure it does. It "require[s]" member states "to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction." Furthermore it charges member states with "enforc this article through appropriate legislation," meaning any relevant national legislation passed must uphold the rights of free expression.

When did I say that? Intimidation, threats, violence, murder and censorship are all part of state-initiated human rights abuses but this is about censorship specifically.No, [i]this proposal is about stopping all forms of stifling free speech; your proposal is about censorship specifically. If you want to discuss your proposal, we already have a thread for that.

We will almost certainly support this proposal when it comes to vote. We have a question, however: the right only applies to individuals. What about a union, or a political party, or an unincorporated business: would they also be protected, or would it simply be their individual members? Our nation doesn't particularly accede to 'group rights', but we thought we'd ask anyway.D'oh, my feeble brain! I forgot completely about Freedom of Assembly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973197&postcount=180)! Yeah, Quod, I think your concerns are already covered.

And plagiarism... At the time of the writing of the TG, I thought some parts of your proposal were very similar to the FPSA, notably parts of the preamble and the definitions. However, I would like to apologise for that statement too.You really need to be more careful with accusations such as these. "Plagiarism" isn't an idle word, it's an actual game infraction.

I understand, The Most Glorious Hack. I'm really sorry. :(

It's at vote now, I voted FOR it (first to vote, yay). :D

Excellent proposal, voted FOR.

. Two, "government institutions and political leaders" are excepted on the defamation clause, mostly because defaming the government or defaming politicians is not a crime.

What's ??????? So you are saying:

"defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of government institutions and political leaders, using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness is NOT a crime and it is for your resolution right of free expression ?

This is a clear discrimination based upon political views, you allow people to defamate who are at gouvernment but not the opposition !?
We think this is not even LEGAL.

And this is not the only point of disagree:

- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes.

This is not right of free expression regardless this "classification" is largely abused to cover the truth to people most of the time about gouvernemnt wrongest actions !?

AND

- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;

You're saying It's not right of free expression so media have no right guaranteed to say to people if a major industry crack due to financial scandal !?

AND, at last:

- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.

This allows nation to censorship arts because you don't make any difference between "commercial pornography" and "artistic nude".

Pheraps this is a great miserunderstanding.

Otherwise we'll think your proposal is very wrong written

This seems allow to people to defamate government without the right to show evidences of their financial and/or political crimes, and this result in a way to discredit the opposition arguments in the eyes of public opinion.

If the proposal was written in this way consciously we affirm this is a TRAP !

A trap to allows single nations be free to ban the REAL freedom of expression !!!

So if you don't explain we're miserunderstanding your proposal at all

WE VOTE AGAINST !

In spite of the "national security purposes" loophole which is almost certainly going to be exploited by nefarious nations (just the same as RL nations!), Hirota votes YES for this proposal.

Hey i am totally against this, in Lintongrad policy is that words against the government are tried as treason and are then punished by detainment, steaming, dunking then flogging and then being tied up and shot in the head and hung by the feet outside parliament house. Dont rob me the freedom to torture treason criminals.

We have voted FOR this resolution and ordered several dozen cargo containers filled with rubber "CLASSIFIED" stamps and red stamp ink pads for sale to interested nations. Our foreign supplier ensures us that these stamps were produced in compliance with the United Nations slave labor act.

We find this proposal to be useless at best, a tool for oppression and silencing of political opposition at worst.

The phrases "knowingly false" and "reckless disregard for their truthfulness" are so maddeningly vague that the very despotic forces the advocate of this resolution wishes to oppose will have a new UN-endorsed tool to silence opponents who make any accusation they cannot concretely prove. Let us take an example: Dissident A believes that Government B is skimming tax money to pay for their vacations in Bermuda. Since B controls the Treasury and its records, A cannot produce evidence for said accusation. A ends up with a lack of free speech protections due to this resolution's vague standards.

The phrase "obscene, salacious, and pornogrpahic" will vary from culture to culture and is therefore either meaningless or, again, a tool for intolerant governments to censor the arts.

While we recognize that this resolution was submitted with the best of intentions, we cannot support it due to its many and egregious flaws.

My dear colleagues I rise today for two reasons. My first is to say how wonderful it is to be back on this floor, and to thank our president for his work in returning our fine country to this body.

My second is to vote for this resolution, as it closely mirrors our own definition of freedom of expression.


Nigel S Youlin
UN Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi.

I have cast my delegate vote FOR this resolution. Nice job, OMGTKK.

-Gordon Ramsey
United Nations Representative - Republic of Audland
Regional UN Delegate - Simtropolis Region

You list an okay (but not great) defense of free speech, then (last point) explicitly disallow three of the most contentious types of free speech within the text of the resolution itself.

This is not a "free expression" act. This is a "types of expression you feel to be appropriate" act.

I kind of have to agree witht he last poster.I initially voted for it but upon further thought i find it to be rather paradoxical that free expression doesnt cover "pornograhy" and "obscene and salacious materials". So we are to have the free expression but only to the point that a moral majority finds acceptable?I can't support that.
And before you even ask, i'm female but nonetheless support the right for people to posess/watch pornograhy.I find that the proposal actually has little free expression in it at all.I'm withdrawing my support for this measure.

Don't vote yes!!!!!! It restricts the game putting some types of government out of business. :mp5::mp5::sniper::sniper::upyours::upyours::mp5::mp5::sniper:

One might find your argument more compelling if you actually listed how that would happen.

[indent][url=www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=expression] For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.


That last line is what threw the vote for us. Everything else in this proposal was sound and fair in our eyes but that.

There is no freedom of expression or of speech or of communication if moral censorship is enforced. Government has no place in dictating morality.

We, unfortunately, had to vote against this proposal...even if it isn't the popular vote right now.

For purposes of this resolution, free expression include: defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of government institutions and political leaders, using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness !

We disagree, this is NOT freedom of expression, this is political crime and its effect it's to give LESS political freedom to people, not more, it allows media to say falsity about political opponents !

We'll vote AGAINST ! :mad:

That last line is what threw the vote for us. Everything else in this proposal was sound and fair in our eyes but that.

There is no freedom of expression or of speech or of communication if moral censorship is enforced. Government has no place in dictating morality.

We, unfortunately, had to vote against this proposal...even if it isn't the popular vote right now.

I'm sorry bub, but government dictates morality all the time. Lets see there is the Age of consent for sexual activity, the age one is legally able to drink alcoholic beverages, the age one is allowed to porchace tobbaco products, various drug laws, of course lets not forget various stautes against theft and murder, ect. Most laws are just that....government legislating the type of morality for the society it represents.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

BTW, even though this law is kinda fluffy, and will probally give me a case of the hives for doing so, the Palentine shall vote for the proposal.

That last line is what threw the vote for us. Everything else in this proposal was sound and fair in our eyes but that.

There is no freedom of expression or of speech or of communication if moral censorship is enforced. Government has no place in dictating morality.

We, unfortunately, had to vote against this proposal...even if it isn't the popular vote right now.

Upon reading this resolution, we almost voted against it as well for the same reason. Almost, mind you. But we didn't, and I'll explain why.

While we agree that the government should not dictate morality to its citizens, except in a situation where there is an overwhelmingly compelling national interest in doing so, we also feel that at some point, you have to balance things between upholding legitimate international concerns and respecting the beliefs of one's fellow nations. We Altanari, for example, may not consider something to be "obscene, salacious or pornographic", but that doesn't change the fact that other peoples might. And not including that line would, in our opinion, have caused this resolution to cross the fine line into being overly intrusive legislation.

We think that this legislation does a superb job of protecting free expression without imposing a moral mandate on nations that might not desire it. We also feel compelled to point out that we see nothing in the legislation that prevents nations from drafting their own laws concerning "obscene, salacious or pornographic" speech, either in favor or opposition to it. It's that ability to choose what laws your nation may seek to enact on such matters that ultimately caused us to change our minds and support this legislation. We will accomplish a lot more as nations by trying to work out our differences on matters such as what constitutes obscenity, rather than using legislation as a blunt hammer to impose our views on such matters on each other, whatever our stances may be.

For that reason, Altanar supports this legislation.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

You list an okay (but not great) defense of free speech, then (last point) explicitly disallow three of the most contentious types of free speech within the text of the resolution itself.

This is not a "free expression" act. This is a "types of expression you feel to be appropriate" act.

Don't vote yes!!!!!! It restricts the game putting some types of government out of business. :mp5::mp5::sniper::sniper::upyours::upyours::mp5::mp5::sniper:Orenia, meet Rain9099. Rain9099 meet Orenia. The two of you seem to be occupying polar opposite views of what the resolution will accomplish. Perhaps you could resolve your issues over a round of high card draw. Or perhaps mud wrestling, depending on certain pertinent factors.

One might find your argument more compelling if you actually listed how that would happen.Gladly, to quote the resolution: Member nations are empowered to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.

The legislative and executive bodies of your nation will be carrying out the mandate of the resolution. Do remember, compliance is mandatory.

That last line is what threw the vote for us. Everything else in this proposal was sound and fair in our eyes but that.

There is no freedom of expression or of speech or of communication if moral censorship is enforced. Government has no place in dictating morality.We, too, have difficulty with the exception granted to the merely salacious, as that charge has frequently been used to squelch access to much women's health information (or even to the idea that women might play an active sexual role).

Given, however, that the exceptions are not required, i.e. your government is quite welcome to extend the freedom of expression to such topics, we have concluded that the greater good is accomplished by approving this resolution.

Rubina votes FOR.

Now, I've got some magazines *ahem* to catch up on.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

The only thing that concerns me a bit about this resolution is the first sentence "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms". It presumes that all UN nations abide by the democratic process and allow the freedom of choice to their people. I personally am in favor of it but there are many who will not be. I don't like forcing any kind of government on people who are not in favor of it. There seems to be a trend in the UN to push through laws that lean toward democracy and if it continues in the future we may no longer be allowed the right to form our own political systems such as dictatorships or communism. And this could have a very strong effect on the game play. So unless my region tells me different I'm going to have to vote against this resolution

Egy Nemzet

The Genesis Federation UN delegate

The only thing that concerns me a bit about this resolution is the first sentence "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms". It presumes that all UN nations abide by the democratic process and allow the freedom of choice to their people.

OOC: The game's programming automatically adds that line to any proposal in the 'Furtherment of Democracy' category.
Incidentally, why is the proposal in that category, rather than 'Human Rights'?

While this proposal isn't one that interests me terribly, i have found myself voting for for it. As far as i can see there is no real problem with it. Even the last line is open to interpretation! If in your nation there is a different standared of morals than in another nation than it doesn't seem to me that this line blocks anything. As long as you dont push the stuff on others, if a naked woman isnt pornographic for you, go for it. After all, are there not nations out there with public nudity?

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN rep. of Ice Forge

Gladly, to quote the resolution: Member nations are empowered to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.

The legislative and executive bodies of your nation will be carrying out the mandate of the resolution. Do remember, compliance is mandatory.




Leetha, while my country may have just re-entered the UN I'm still perfectly aware of is compliance requirements.

My statement was directed toward the gun toting, finger waving delegate from Rain9099. I'm not aware how this will "put some governments out of business."

I could be mistaken but I was alway under the impression that the "through appropriate legislation statement" left it up to the individual country to review their legislation and deem it appropriate or not. I don't see a call for any UN committee or other oversight body so again, I must be missing where it's anything that could put a government out of business.


Nigel S Yolkin
UN Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

I'm sorry bub, but government dictates morality all the time. Lets see there is the Age of consent for sexual activity, the age one is legally able to drink alcoholic beverages, the age one is allowed to porchace tobbaco products, various drug laws, of course lets not forget various stautes against theft and murder, ect. Most laws are just that....government legislating the type of morality for the society it represents.

Yes, we are well aware that governments do dictate morality. Our point is that allowing member governments to dictate morality should not be a part of UN policy. In our humble opinion, all member governments should be required to dissolve all "blue laws" and other prohibitions against non-criminal activities which do not directly cause harm or safety concerns to others.

What people do to themselves and what consenting adults do to each other is of no concern to national security or social welfare.

Upon reading this resolution, we almost voted against it as well for the same reason. Almost, mind you. But we didn't, and I'll explain why.

While we agree that the government should not dictate morality to its citizens, except in a situation where there is an overwhelmingly compelling national interest in doing so, we also feel that at some point, you have to balance things between upholding legitimate international concerns and respecting the beliefs of one's fellow nations. We Altanari, for example, may not consider something to be "obscene, salacious or pornographic", but that doesn't change the fact that other peoples might. And not including that line would, in our opinion, have caused this resolution to cross the fine line into being overly intrusive legislation.

We think that this legislation does a superb job of protecting free expression without imposing a moral mandate on nations that might not desire it. We also feel compelled to point out that we see nothing in the legislation that prevents nations from drafting their own laws concerning "obscene, salacious or pornographic" speech, either in favor or opposition to it. It's that ability to choose what laws your nation may seek to enact on such matters that ultimately caused us to change our minds and support this legislation. We will accomplish a lot more as nations by trying to work out our differences on matters such as what constitutes obscenity, rather than using legislation as a blunt hammer to impose our views on such matters on each other, whatever our stances may be.

For that reason, Altanar supports this legislation.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador


The problem is in the wording.

Any government wishing to abide by this policy can expand their official definitions of "obscene, salacious, or pornographic" to mean anything they want it to. That line can easily make the entire proposal meaningless in the hands of a corrupt, legalistic regime.

EXAMPLE: Oh, you want to express your opinion that the current president is a philandering homophobe? Well, that's officially declared obscene...and therefore illegal.

EXAMPLE: So you feel that sculpting a perfect rendition of a soldier handing a child a flower is a good example of contemporary art? Well, we officially declare that salacious material and ban it outright!

Get the picture?

Will the U.N. be dictating what is appropriate and inappropriate? Or will that be left to each individual nation to determine?

*snip*EXAMPLE: Oh, so you want to claim that "obscene, salacious and pornographic" can extend to criticizing the president and prevent the erection of statues?

EXAMPLE: You intend to ignore all reasonable definitions of "obscene, salacious and pornographic" so you can claim the resolution is useless?

I'm sorry, but that's officially considered "wanking," and has no place in serious debate.

Good day to you, sir.

OOC: The game's programming automatically adds that line to any proposal in the 'Furtherment of Democracy' category.
Incidentally, why is the proposal in that category, rather than 'Human Rights'?That's exactly right.

This was filed under FoD rather than HR because we're dealing with political rather than personal freedoms here, just as with Freedom of Assembly.

For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.

I'm sorry, but if you want to propose a Freedom of Expression Act, it kind of defeats the purpose of it if you place restrictions on certain expressions right off the bat. I have to vote No on this.

It seems the common thread of concern is the spirit in which the law is interpreted, especially the definition of obscene. Given that Agregorn is corporate controlled, this issue is somewhat of a commonplace. If one company happens to have the majority of present consumer control by virtue of capitol, they have the power to determine what they will interpret as legal or otherwise. This would lend to the belief that the more power a given party, company, or entity has, the more corrupt they will become, and the more power they will grab. However, a law is only affective if the people agree to follow it, and if a government agrees to enforce it. As such, the more corrupt, the less efficient, the more doomed.

People are free to do what they want, and by the whims of Adam Smith or John Locke, we can easily ignore freedom if we choose to do so. Were a company to ban slander and interpret an honest accusation as an immoral demonstration, one could simply stop shopping there, and vote with our wallets.

Of course, this does bring the philosophical question of the usefulness of laws as a whole, as if the government is unable to monopolize control over the nation as a whole, how does it have the authority to enforce anything? To this, and to support of this law (by spirit more than by wording), laws are simply that: a suggestion for an orderly society for the betterment, and are best left as a moderate interpretation with as little (or in most cases, no) control imposed by the governing forces. Laws only tell us what to do, and the authority of the law stops just beyond the educational guides and social norms they pretend to dictate. Indeed, law is more the reflection of societal norms than it is the establishment of them.

Contrary to Leviathan, mankind does not thrive in chaos. Left to our devices, we're likely to go about doing the same thing whether guided or otherwise. If we are simply made to be responsible for our actions, we have nothing to fear. As such, the role of law should be one of exercising the spirit of the community of a whole, and not a list of "Do's and Do Not's" coupled with appropriate punishment. Above all, allow the interpretation, the execution, and even the addendum's of individual legislation to be advocated at the smallest level only. The more local, the more relevant it will be to the individual. This would be a chance of less paternalism of the state (or the cumbersome UN) and a chance to improve individual credibility. Indeed, it would be one more cost-free check.

Twafflonia approves and endorses the proposed resolution. Salacious is a fantastic word.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

I'm a bit worried about this. If freedoms EXCEPT the 'obscene' or pornographic are protected, porn will LOSE protection by way of exception.

Solution? Freedom of porn act.

I'm a bit worried about this. If freedoms EXCEPT the 'obscene' or pornographic are protected, porn will LOSE protection by way of exception.

Solution? Freedom of porn act.

Heck, I'd vote for it. But that's a topic for a different thread.

EXAMPLE: Oh, so you want to claim that "obscene, salacious and pornographic" can extend to criticizing the president and prevent the erection of statues?

EXAMPLE: You intend to ignore all reasonable definitions of "obscene, salacious and pornographic" so you can claim the resolution is useless?

I'm sorry, but that's officially considered "wanking," and has no place in serious debate.

Good day to you, sir.

Okay, child. So, you think serious debate has bigoted responses such as those which use words like "wanking" in it? Grow up.

Who's to say what is a reasonable definition of "obscene, salacious and pornographic? Is the UN now going to place official definitions of these words for all member-nations to abide by?

And, yes, extensions of definitions can and HAS gone so far as to include such ludicrous things as statues and anti-government commentary. To allow a member-nation the freedom to use that legal loophole only invites total negation of the policy as a whole.

Now, care to counter that with an intelligent and educated response? Or are you just going to call us wankers again?

My statement was directed toward the gun toting, finger waving delegate from Rain9099. I'm not aware how this will "put some governments out of business."Leetha looks around a large stack of magazines at the Philimbesi delegation.

Our apologies Ambassador Yolkin. The translator didn't pick up your earlier statement, and with the general hub-bub of conversation it was difficult to tell that you were addressing the Rain9099s. In light of that, we sincerely rescind our remarks directed to you. Care for some reading material to get you through the rest of this ... debate?

I'm a bit worried about this. If freedoms EXCEPT the 'obscene' or pornographic are protected, porn will LOSE protection by way of exception.

Solution? Freedom of porn act.Or even better, a Free (as in beer) Porn Act. Were UN gnomes laden with such during their compliance visits, they might not be shot at as frequently.

--L.T.

In light of that, we sincerely rescind our remarks directed to you. Care for some reading material to get you through the rest of this ... debate?


Nigel turns to Leena

Thank you, and as long as you promise the reading material is salacious. Absolutely.

Then to the assembly

Also while I have the floor I'd like to point out to my colleague from The Tetrad that there is no text in the resolution creating a UN definition for pornography and that the definition is left completely up to the nation to define. In other words if your population or government finds the matter acceptable it is covered under the freedom of expression.

Nigel S Youlkin.

*snip*Do we have to deal with one of these guys every time a resolution is at vote? :rolleyes:

The moderators have repeatedly held that resolutions only apply to serious roleplayers, not wankers. And since any moron with half a gnat's brain knows that "obscene, salacious or pornographic materials" probably means blatantly offensive sexual materials, trying to wiggle your way around that with, er, "creative" definitions is going to be considered wanking. You can wank all you want in your roleplay, but it isn't going to earn you a lot of respect in these halls.

Oh, and btw, "wank" = "to make ridiculous assumptions in roleplay." That includes the interpretation of UN resolutions. Normally I wouldn't have to point that out, but you seem to need a legal definition for everything...

I like the idea of this resolution, but in my opinion it's formed too unprecisely and would be very easy to avoid. Lacks a precise definition what a "free expression" is. Contains only a list of things that are forbidden. In my opinion this list isn't complete. Therefore, I think this issue does nothing, moreover, it's malicious. AGAINST.

Oh, and btw, "wank" = "to make ridiculous assumptions in roleplay." That includes the interpretation of UN resolutions. Normally I wouldn't have to point that out, but you seem to need a legal definition for everything...

Not everyone comes from a country that uses "wank/wanker/wanking" to such a degree as you do. To those of us that aren't as familiar with it as you apparently are, its meaning is slightly more derogatory and insulting. If you want this to be a serious discussion, then keep your slang (and it is slang) out of it. Thank you.

Any government wishing to abide by this policy can expand their official definitions of "obscene, salacious, or pornographic" to mean anything they want it to. That line can easily make the entire proposal meaningless in the hands of a corrupt, legalistic regime.

EXAMPLE: Oh, you want to express your opinion that the current president is a philandering homophobe? Well, that's officially declared obscene...and therefore illegal.

EXAMPLE: So you feel that sculpting a perfect rendition of a soldier handing a child a flower is a good example of contemporary art? Well, we officially declare that salacious material and ban it outright!

Get the picture?

His Majesty's representatives to the United Nations - namely, me and the other poor souls that he sent here - are hardly so naive or inexperienced in these halls as to not be aware of the ludicrously amusing attempts that some nations will undertake to find loopholes in just about any legislation. However, while a nation could choose to define statues of soldiers handing kids flowers as "salacious" or calling the nation's political leader a bad name to be "obscene", picking the most extreme examples of national crackpottery is not a particularly convincing argument against this resolution to us. We found ourselves wondering what your way of "fixing" this frankly minor dilemma would be, and you were nice enough to answer that question for us:

To allow a member-nation the freedom to use that legal loophole only invites total negation of the policy as a whole.

We find your wording quite telling. "Allowing" a member nation to be absolutely, utterly, balls-to-the-wall insane in its efforts to evade UN legislation that they could avoid much more easily by simply, you know, resigning from the UN if they really found it that objectionable, may be troubling to you. Frankly, we're more bothered by the mentality that suggests that we shouldn't "allow a member nation the freedom" to decide for themselves how to enforce UN legislation. We certainly can't have any of that "allowing freedom" stuff, after all...next thing you know, nations will be wanting to run the UN in a democratic fashion, voting on legislation instead of simply imposing it by fiat, giving members a chance to address proposed legislation in an open assembly....who'd want that?

I sincerely hope you can sense the sarcasm in my speech. Your attitude that member nations need to be imposed upon, rather than being trusted to follow the spirit of the UN's efforts, is exactly what we were talking about when we said that nations need to work together to resolve their issues instead of trying to hammer each other legislatively into submission.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Not everyone comes from a country that uses "wank/wanker/wanking" to such a degree as you do. To those of us that aren't as familiar with it as you apparently are, its meaning is slightly more derogatory and insulting. If you want this to be a serious discussion, then keep your slang (and it is slang) out of it. Thank you.

Oh no, someone used slang in a discussion! The world's about to end! Call out the grammar nazis!

I really hope we can head off the whole "you used mean words and/or your grammar sucks so we're going to complain about that since we have no valid points against the resolution whatsoever" line of "argument" before it starts. But somehow, I'm not hopeful.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

OOC: I'm sure I've seen several mods use 'wank' in the same sense as Kenny, especially in regard to a former UN regular known as DLE. And yes, it's meant to be carrying those negative connotations.

IC: In spite of my continued misgivings over the section I pointed out earlier, I think it best that Dasri votes FOR this resolution.

This act gives far too much power to the government. The last thing people over the world need are "official" secrets.

Oh no, someone used slang in a discussion! The world's about to end! Call out the grammar nazis!

I really hope we can head off the whole "you used mean words and/or your grammar sucks so we're going to complain about that since we have no valid points against the resolution whatsoever" line of "argument" before it starts. But somehow, I'm not hopeful.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

My comment, "Ambassador", was aimed at this comment from the OP:

EXAMPLE: Oh, so you want to claim that "obscene, salacious and pornographic" can extend to criticizing the president and prevent the erection of statues?

EXAMPLE: You intend to ignore all reasonable definitions of "obscene, salacious and pornographic" so you can claim the resolution is useless?

I'm sorry, but that's officially considered "wanking," and has no place in serious debate.

Good day to you, sir.

It was an attempt to call him out on his ironic post (bolded for emphasis). Slang really doesn't have any place in a serious debate, other then to start turmoil (which it has apparently). I, for one, could care less that he used it. But to use it to bolster his "this is a serious debate", that's just laughable.

So before you decide to try and label me a "grammar nazi", it might behoove you to think before you speak. Thank you.

Why I think it's wrong...

1. The restriction of government
-It does not allow for dictatorships and others to exist
-How I read it is that all the things I and my comrades believe in is "wrong"
2. It would have a bad affect to the UN
-Look, Nobody is on each others bad side so this will cause a uproar of people leaving the UN, so...

...DO NOT VOTE YES!!! It will Hurt the UN.

Instead, why not revise it so everyone is happy. ;)

I've read the proposal and agree it is better than the poll. However due to the mixing of what we believe to be two separte legal actions, speech and acting on it, we must vote against it. Exression in words from the mouth or arse is one thing but to take action on those words is another and in many cases criminal. Then to put those words on papers or any form that they can be passed around beyond the time folks might recall what one person said if for us not speech even if it is a form of expression. To ingnore what folks may say they often in time get tired of it but when they find others pick up on it and repeat it either by vocal or other media they will drag an issue on and on.

If a child repeats words over and over in time he will realize it is wrong to say them if you gently remind him with a firm tap on the rear enough times. In this the parents can be seen a expressing their dislike for the words and the child his dislike for something, both can't be protected. Where it becomes other that legal expression is when the parents abuse the child physicaly or mentaly above what is needed, on the part of the child it becomes other than legal expression if he takes actions on his words and does what he says will do thus harming others or himself of not following rules laid down by those over him.

So with no clear separation in this of actions and speech we vote against it. Yet agree free speech is a right we all have and is a legal means to express things legal... to others in a society that lives by set laws condoning certain actions....

I've read the proposal and agree it is better than the poll. However due to the mixing of what we believe to be two separte legal actions, speech and acting on it, we must vote against it....etc.


Thank You Cavirra, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny
For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.

That last line is what threw the vote for us. Everything else in this proposal was sound and fair in our eyes but that.

There is no freedom of expression or of speech or of communication if moral censorship is enforced. Government has no place in dictating morality.

We, unfortunately, had to vote against this proposal...even if it isn't the popular vote right now.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Curiously enough, it is that last line that makes this resolution tolerable to our nation. The examples of people using vulgarity and claiming "freedom of expression" as a cover to coarsen the public discourse are sadly far too many to mention. Without some safeguard for the public decorum, this proposal would be an invitation to lead nations down the path towards speaking like Palentinate dolphins!

Well, for one, I'm sure I don't follow when you say we castigated other drafters over the "who decides" issue.
How very curious; we appear to have entirely hallucinated a conversation. We apologise, and can only offer as an excuse an excess of Christmas spirit.

Two, "government institutions and political leaders" are excepted on the defamation clause, mostly because defaming the government or defaming politicians is not a crime.
We cannot say that we agree on this point.

Three, this proposal does not outlaw any of these things; it simply doesn't extend international protection to some narrow areas, including pornography. The language in all cases has been tailored to be about as clear and precise as it can be to instruct nations as to what manners of expression are protected and what are not, in order to prevent abuse.
On mature consideration, we concur that while this proposal is vastly weaker than we would prefer, it does not block stronger legislation in the loopholes it allows.

Finally, I really don't know how you expect anyone to verify whether or not a government has classified only the appropriate documents. If material has been blocked from public consumption, it's simply blocked, and there's no way around that -- unless, of course, you'd prefer we force all nations to release all classified materials, or better yet, impanel a UN commission to review all nationally classified materials worldwide and decide for member nations what information should and should not be kept classified. Oh, that would be lovely.
We confess, we had been considering a discrete committee sitting in camera, adjudicating on specific blocks. However a more sensible approach and one we think more appropriate to the needs of free expression would be after-the-fact rulings. Where classified material has been released to the public, a panel empowered to definitively state whether that classification was reasonable or not would be a discouragement to governments attempting to abuse the classification of material while not encouraging reckless endangerment by sensationalists and over-eager idealists alike.

EXAMPLE: Oh, so you want to claim that "obscene, salacious and pornographic" can extend to criticizing the president and prevent the erection of statues?
OOC: hur hur, he said "erection", hur hur.

IC: We had thought "obscene, salacious and pornographic" highly likely to feature in any criticism of President Fernanda, most likely in the response of the man himself.

More seriously, we do mourn the omission of obscenity from the protections of this resolution. Although the examples given have been somewhat facile, those dismissing the issue too abruptly would do well to consider the many ways in which obscenity laws have historically been abused to persecute minorities. While the UN's raft of anti-discrimination laws ameliorate the situation somewhat, there is still nothing to prevent the public depiction (or indeed actuality) of two women kissing being declared obscene.

It was an attempt to call him out on his ironic post (bolded for emphasis). Slang really doesn't have any place in a serious debate, other then to start turmoil (which it has apparently). I, for one, could care less that he used it. But to use it to bolster his "this is a serious debate", that's just laughable.

So before you decide to try and label me a "grammar nazi", it might behoove you to think before you speak. Thank you.

And before you attempt (emphasis on attempt) to call someone out on perceived irony, you may want to read the posts as well. You apparently missed the part of this discussion where OMGTKK, among others, pointed out that "wanking" is a commonly used phrase on this forum meaning "to make ridiculous assumptions in roleplay." Slang it may be, but it had relevance to the issue at hand.

Speaking of ridiculous assumptions, the idea that slang terms can't be used in a debate strikes me as incredibly fussy and wanktacular in its own right. But hey, that may just be me.

Now, do you actually have anything to say about the resolution? Or would you like to continue boring us into stupefaction with your linguistic contortions?

-Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Why I think it's wrong...

1. The restriction of government
-It does not allow for dictatorships and others to exist
Nowhere does the proposal make any mandate about the nature of government. It is by no means impossible for a dictatorship to allow opinions to be freely expressed, and indeed frequently beneficial to them.

-How I read it is that all the things I and my comrades believe in is "wrong"
We suggest that you expand further upon this comment, lest you leave us confirmed in the opinion that you and your comrades are indeed wrong.

2. It would have a bad affect to the UN
-Look, Nobody is on each others bad side so this will cause a uproar of people leaving the UN, so...
Many nations are on each others' bad sides, sometimes requiring to be high-order polygons in order to have sufficiently many bad sides, and UN resolutions do essentially nothing to change this. Almost all resolutions result in an uproar of threats to depart these halls, which has had no discernable effect on the UN thus far. We do not see any bad effect on the UN in either strand of argument.

And before you attempt (emphasis on attempt) to call someone out on perceived irony, you may want to read the posts as well. You apparently missed the part of this discussion where OMGTKK, among others, pointed out that "wanking" is a commonly used phrase on this forum meaning "to make ridiculous assumptions in roleplay." Slang it may be, but it had relevance to the issue at hand.

Yes, I read what OMGTKK said, but not all of us come from a country that uses "wank" on a regular basis, and the only thing we (countries that aren't familiar with its usage) have to go on is what is portrayed in the media. Which, more often then not, is used as a personal attack (again, this is what its use is portrayed as).

OOC: I'm sure I've seen several mods use 'wank' in the same sense as Kenny, especially in regard to a former UN regular known as DLE. And yes, it's meant to be carrying those negative connotations.

Speaking of ridiculous assumptions, the idea that slang terms can't be used in a debate strikes me as incredibly fussy and wanktacular in its own right. But hey, that may just be me.

I'll say it again (and bold it for emphasis), I have no problem with slang. Only when it's used to bolster ones argument against another's by attacking their person. But I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

Now, do you actually have anything to say about the resolution? Or would you like to continue boring us into stupefaction with your linguistic contortions?

-Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Certainly. I was perfectly willing to vote for the resolution up until the "For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:". To me, it seems that this was indeed a Free Expression Act, that provision would not be in there. It kind of defeats the purpose of the FEA, if it excludes certain things right off the bat.

Don't vote yes!!!!!! It restricts the game putting some types of government out of business.

I'm going to step in here and explain that the category of "Furtherment of Democracy" does not actually mandate your nation become a democracy. It's just a "step" in that direction. This is a resolution that adds political freedoms, so it's in that category. Your nation can be a dictatorship with some political freedoms, just look at OMGTKK(which is technically a sham democracy ;)).

That last line is what threw the vote for us. Everything else in this proposal was sound and fair in our eyes but that.

Do you honestly think any free speech legislation is going to pass this body that protects
"obscene, salacious or pornographic materials"? This resolution specifically exempts them, rather than specifically allows them. That means this can pass, and nations that want tighter laws can have them, without their sovereignty being interfered with. Don't look at the exemptions as restrictions, they aren't. They merely allow nations the ability to restrict them should they want to.


Lets make sure this is clear, as it seems to be the prevailing argument against.

If you have restrictive laws on "obscene, salacious or pornographic materials", then you can keep them under this act.

If you have no restrictive laws on "obscene, salacious or pornographic materials", then you can keep them under this act.

Do you honestly think any free speech legislation is going to pass this body that protects
"obscene, salacious or pornographic materials"? This resolution specifically exempts them, rather than specifically allows them. That means this can pass, and nations that want tighter laws can have them, without their sovereignty being interfered with. Don't look at the exemptions as restrictions, they aren't. They merely allow nations the ability to restrict them should they want to.


Lets make sure this is clear, as it seems to be the prevailing argument against.

If you have restrictive laws on "obscene, salacious or pornographic materials", then you can keep them under this act.

If you have no restrictive laws on "obscene, salacious or pornographic materials", then you can keep them under this act.

Why not just leave the line out of the proposal completely? Having it there at all creates moral issues and legalistic issues that--when piggybacked on an otherwise sound proposal--cause unease and concern in nations like ours. If a nation wishes to enforce certain moral laws while under the proposal, the UN can observe and debate over the minutae of what constitutes a moral issue versus an expression of art or opinion with each member nation on a case-by-case basis rather than adding a blanket statement like the line in question.

Certainly. I was perfectly willing to vote for the resolution up until the "For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:". To me, it seems that this was indeed a Free Expression Act, that provision would not be in there. It kind of defeats the purpose of the FEA, if it excludes certain things right off the bat.

I agree 150% on this, and as a result I will confirm right here and now that I have already voted AGAINST this proposal, and should it pass, I will be resigning from the U.N.

Why not just leave the line out of the proposal completely?

Because the proposal's been submitted. Once a proposal is submitted, it can't be changed.

OOC:
Unlucke:

Godmoding, Godmodding, and Wanking: The general idea behind godmoding, as its name makes evident, is making yourself or your nation godlike in power and unable to die. It is commonly used by first-time roleplayers, and is frequently accompanied by Smilie Spam (see below). Under most circumstances, godmoddery is not a moderation offense unless it turns to spam. At that point, godmode n00b wars will often be locked or moved to the spam forum. Note that flaming in response to n00bish behavior is still forbidden.(my emphasis)

Wanking isn't just a slang term here, it's a term used to describe behaviour. There's a few synonyms, as you see above, but 'wanking' is the term I've seen used when someone is godmodding simply for their own pleasure.
No, as said above, it's not in itself actionable. However, it is deeply annoying to other RPers, both UN-style and in the true RP forums.
Now, can we please stop analysing a single term that doesn't even appear in the resolution at vote?

Why not just leave the line out of the proposal completely? Having it there at all creates moral issues and legalistic issues that--when piggybacked on an otherwise sound proposal--cause unease and concern in nations like ours. If a nation wishes to enforce certain moral laws while under the proposal, the UN can observe and debate over the minutae of what constitutes a moral issue versus an expression of art or opinion with each member nation on a case-by-case basis rather than adding a blanket statement like the line in question.
OOC:The UN as such has no mechanism for debating & ruling on minutiae, as you suggest, rather than for passing complete resolutions, and probably couldn't be given one: Giving a UN Committee (established in the same proposal) that authority would have been legal, but there would have been no way for players to actually determine what that committee had really decided on any point...
And no, before you suggest it, we couldn't follow the (likely) passage of this proposal with one amending it in that way: Amendments are against the rules.

Yes, I read what OMGTKK said, but not all of us come from a country that uses "wank" on a regular basis, and the only thing we (countries that aren't familiar with its usage) have to go on is what is portrayed in the media. Which, more often then not, is used as a personal attack (again, this is what its use is portrayed as).Dasri is exactly right: it isn't an insult; it's a term commonly used when discussing the game. And since we all are playing the same game here, I hardly think nationality has a thing to do with it.

I'll say it again (and bold it for emphasis), I have no problem with slang. Only when it's used to bolster ones argument against another's by attacking their person. But I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.I wasn't attacking anyone; I was describing certain arguments used. There's rather a difference. Thank you for at least making a token attempt to address the actual proposal (which I'll respond to in a moment), but I have to warn you, this whole business about "wanking" is threadjack, and if it continues, I will report you to the moderators.

Certainly. I was perfectly willing to vote for the resolution up until the "For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:". To me, it seems that this was indeed a Free Expression Act, that provision would not be in there. It kind of defeats the purpose of the FEA, if it excludes certain things right off the bat.It "excludes certain things" for the sake of law and order. Free speech cannot be absolute, and even in the freest of societies reasonable limitations have to be imposed, simply because without them, certain laws could not be enforced. I assume, then, that your objection to the exemptions clause means you support things such as slander, hate speech, violating people's privacy, endangering national security, and allowing children to access pornography? These sorts of things could not be prevented on a national level without the provisions to which you refer.

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;


Quick question, do racist remarks go under this?

Cookesland votes FOR

Richard York
UN Ambassador

... but I have to warn you, this whole business about "wanking" is threadjack, and if it continues, I will report you to the moderators.

Fair go, Kenny, most of the threadjack has been regulars explaining the term.

Quick question, do racist remarks go under this?No, defamation usually involves lying about someone to damage their reputation, but if racist remarks are being used to incite violence, lawlessness or disorder, it would covered under the next clause.

No, defamation usually involves lying about someone to damage their reputation, but if racist remarks are being used to incite violence, lawlessness or disorder, it would covered under the next clause.

[Ooc:Ok, thanks i just needed to clear that up.]

Certainly. I was perfectly willing to vote for the resolution up until the "For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:". To me, it seems that this was indeed a Free Expression Act, that provision would not be in there. It kind of defeats the purpose of the FEA, if it excludes certain things right off the bat.

Certain sacrifices have to be made in order to produce legislation that will pass this body. While I don't like that those sacrifices have to be made, I am also pragmatic. I'd rather see good legislation pass that will cover most of what I'd like to see covered, rather than not pass any at all because it doesn't cover everything, and thus cut off my nose to spite my face. Those exclusions, though unfortunate, are in my estimation necessary to get us to the point where this resolution might have a chance to pass.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I am afraid my nation has had to cast its vote against this resolution for three reasons, both found in the list of exempt types of speech.

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.

First off, I would like to take this opportunity to declare that my government has just declared all "words" crucial national security interests and has classified them after learning a nearby and quite possibly imaginary nation is trying to steal our language. It also reminds all citizens that the penalty for breaking "word" classification is "a summery stern glance. Unless we don't like what you're saying."

Next, we object to this resolution leaving an exemption for morals. While we recognize that some governments wish to enforce morality on their citizens, the UN isn't the right body to dictate what that morality is - and we believe if you're going to allow free speech you should go all the way. We also don't believe in free speech, but that's another matter all-together. Basically our citizens will be encouraged to use *their* right of free speech (if this passes) to hurl insults in the general direction of the governments that try to use this exemption to enforce arbitrary moralities. The penalty for such breaking of the new "word" classification will be one mandatory cookie.

And finally we are appalled by the lack of exemption for *local* lawlessness and disorder. Like yelling "fire" in a crowded room. The penalty for breaking the classification on the word "fire" when in front of many witnesses will be a bit more then a stern glance. Unless there actually is a fire.

We must not accept highly imperfect proposals such as this. While the idea of this proposal is a positive one, there are so many ways in which an oppressive nations government can spin this proposal and gain further control of the media. This proposal directly gives almost all power of freedom of speech to the government. I encourage all nations to vote AGAINST this proposal. We can not shrug off the imperfections of this bill because there are a few positives. If my fellow members of the U.N. truly care for freedom of expression they will not allow any government to control the definition of freedom of expression. That is precisely what this proposal does.

We vote for this in the yea category. Wazzit about? (We have great faith in the author of this... proposal or repeal or whatever this is)

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Nations. For purposes of comment I yield the floor to Queen Victoria in whose name all citizens in Blue Booted Bobbies will always yield."
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/44f7re2.jpg
"We are all for free expression; we ourselves express ourselves most freely and it would not be proper to allow others to do the same. Never the less there are some people who should freely not express themselves; so that it is not obvious to all that they lack the ability to do so properly. In any event we like the nation of Omigodtheykilledkenny. Therefore we approve."

"But your magesty ..."

"I said we approve."

"But the Regional UN Delegate, Nevadar, has voted AGAINST this resolution."

"Must you shout the word against?"

"Sorry your Magesty, I was just copying and pasting."

"Well we are not amused. I don't recall being asked my opinion. Was there a reference in the regional forums."

"No, your magesty, in fact there wasn't anything for the previous resolution."

"Very well, then we insist you vote yes."

Meanwhile in quiet discussions from the aides of BBB

"Doesn't Major General Stanley know that Queen Victoria been dead for centuies and it's in fact his daughter Mabel who is playing the part of Queen Victoria?"

"Yes, but we are all playing a part as it were, and as long as she is that part we must yield. We do not yield for Queen Victoria, but for Queen Victoria's Name and Mabel has been given Queen Victoria's Name."

*Prime Minister Viridio takes another large bite out of his roast beef and provolone cheese sandwhich and continues reading the resolution on the desk before him. He frowns, and scratches his head.*

Mshfmmg, mrosh ghofos hoesh-

*swallows*

Sorry. Helen, is my black suit back from the cleaners?

"Mmhmm."

Thanks.

--------------------
Official Press Release
--------------------

The Federation of Eaglus submits a vote AGAINST the proposed resolution. While we agree that such a resolution is needed, this is not it, as there are too many loopholes and sideskirts to the regulations it describes. This governing body suggests a more tightly worded resolution that would better benefit all nations. Thank you.

Prime Minister Virido
The Federation of Eaglus
Founder of the Hegemony of Music

This resolution is hypocritical, and the name of it is a lie, as it stifles freedom of expression from pornographic material. VOTE NO!

i think this proposal is a good idea.
this really puts democratic elements in each every nation.

I think this is a very well written proposal, and deserves commemeration. Furthermore, I think it could use a little amendment. I would like to propose that you add a statement telling the world if or if not you support gay marriage being involved in this. I as a democrat believe this is ideal for a gental society. But furthermore I in particular agree with your proposal thouroughly and will vote for it.


Delfinostan :)

I am afraid my nation has had to cast its vote against this resolution for three reasons, both found in the list of exempt types of speech.



First off, I would like to take this opportunity to declare that my government has just declared all "words" crucial national security interests and has classified them after learning a nearby and quite possibly imaginary nation is trying to steal our language. It also reminds all citizens that the penalty for breaking "word" classification is "a summery stern glance. Unless we don't like what you're saying."

Next, we object to this resolution leaving an exemption for morals. While we recognize that some governments wish to enforce morality on their citizens, the UN isn't the right body to dictate what that morality is - and we believe if you're going to allow free speech you should go all the way. We also don't believe in free speech, but that's another matter all-together. Basically our citizens will be encouraged to use *their* right of free speech (if this passes) to hurl insults in the general direction of the governments that try to use this exemption to enforce arbitrary moralities. The penalty for such breaking of the new "word" classification will be one mandatory cookie.

And finally we are appalled by the lack of exemption for *local* lawlessness and disorder. Like yelling "fire" in a crowded room. The penalty for breaking the classification on the word "fire" when in front of many witnesses will be a bit more then a stern glance. Unless there actually is a fire.

Exactly my thaughts! Voting against.
Free expression? These are limited freedoms. If you want to allow free expression let anything be said and done, and leave individual countries to choose 1 or more of the specific criteria.

Unfortunately, at this time we will be unable to add our support to this vote. Although the proposal is clearly only classed as Mild the extensive list of exemptions is troubling for two immediate reasons.

Although the act is Mild I can see these exemptions being dragged out by lascivious barristers for years to come to add non binding weight to their arguments in court. The courts decisions then adding legitimacy and binding precedent to the act.

There is no indication under what broad spectrum the exemptions are determined. Courts and lascivious barristers will have years of fun defining what, 'obscene, salacious or pornographic materials' refers to for example. With no guiding assertion on the broad principles behind the exemptions there is no clear guidance for courts or lascivious barristers to interpret the exemptions.

Although our government is all in support of a free expression we prefer a broad notion of what this means in a practical sense. We hereby assert our support for free expression in terms of common law assumptions of what free expression really is, but are unwilling to limit the legal recourse and responsibilities by actively defining some forms of non-free expression at this point, preferring that our courts handle this.

The extensive list of exemptions, with no guiding principle could be argued to imply that the list is exhaustive and all other forms of free expression do come under the umbrella of the act.

On a personal note, I might add that our nation currently outlaws public nudity, though it is only rarely enforced. Under the act public nudity could be seen as a form of free expression and our people would be loath to accept a sudden increase in the number of bottoms and such on the high streets.

Other than that, it's a very nicely written up proposal and I commend you for your hard work.

OOC:
lascivious barristers... Courts and lascivious barristers
What, so chaste barristers don't get a look in in The true Barnettia?

IC: Well, um, it seems there is a lot more debate over all this than I expected. Who'd have thought that specific wording would make everyone so angsty? I don't know, I'm a lot less sure about voting For this resolution now, it's all a bit of a mess.
~ Hari Desana

free speach is not neccessary. Plenty of nations including my own Australia have no right to free speach at all but have plenty of half baked opinions circuling. Yet a dictatorship like North Korea guarentees it. Any UN resolution to guarentee free speach is a feel good guesture that dose nothing in reality. It is up to the nation to decide what should or should not be said depending on individual circumstances such as war or political instability.

There is no evidence that so called free speach even works upon opening up debate or increasing political options. The UN would be far better off looking to increase internet access or education for the poor sucky nations then getting an additional piece of paper that only adds another legal layer.

Any country that truly want to silence free speach or change the idea of free speach will do so regardless of UN paperwork. Just ask Iran if the Holocaust exists

First off, I would like to take this opportunity to declare that my government has just declared all "words" crucial national security interests and has classified them after learning a nearby and quite possibly imaginary nation is trying to steal our language. It also reminds all citizens that the penalty for breaking "word" classification is "a summery stern glance. Unless we don't like what you're saying."Right. Uh-huh. Any idiot can dream up exceedingly stupid end-runs around UN law. For instance, Emigration Rights says exemptions can be made for the mentally ill; therefore, any Kennyite who honestly expresses a desire to move to Drec will be declared "mentally ill," and barred from exercising his rights under UNR #198. You see how that works? We simply can't waste our time exacting legal contingencies for every nitwit who thinks he's clever. To allude to a related portion of this discussion, "wanking" is nearly never considered a good excuse for getting out of enforcing international law, so there's no reason on Earth why we should bother addressing it in our resolutions.

Next, we object to this resolution leaving an exemption for morals. While we recognize that some governments wish to enforce morality on their citizens, the UN isn't the right body to dictate what that morality is - and we believe if you're going to allow free speech you should go all the way. We also don't believe in free speech, but that's another matter all-together. Basically our citizens will be encouraged to use *their* right of free speech (if this passes) to hurl insults in the general direction of the governments that try to use this exemption to enforce arbitrary moralities. The penalty for such breaking of the new "word" classification will be one mandatory cookie.Hoo-hoo! Again with the smart attitude ... I don't recall anything in this proposal addressing "morality," let alone allowing for the UN to "dictate what that morality is." Morality is relative, nation by nation, and this merely provides exemptions for obscene, salacious and pornographic materials, the access to which by no means constitutes the whole of legislating morality. Common law in many nations has repeatedly determined that the obscene, the salacious, and the pornographic are not forms of protected free speech, and we sought to uphold that widely held legal view in this mandate. Limiting access to porn does not stifle your citizens' right to express themselves freely, even if it does stifle their ability to beat off.

And finally we are appalled by the lack of exemption for *local* lawlessness and disorder. Like yelling "fire" in a crowded room. The penalty for breaking the classification on the word "fire" when in front of many witnesses will be a bit more then a stern glance. Unless there actually is a fire.Oh, really? First, there are too many exemptions, and now there are too few? Does your government really consider "a crowded room" to be an "available medium"? Because that's all this resolution protects, public speech.

We must not accept highly imperfect proposals such as this. While the idea of this proposal is a positive one, there are so many ways in which an oppressive nations government can spin this proposal and gain further control of the media. This proposal directly gives almost all power of freedom of speech to the government. I encourage all nations to vote AGAINST this proposal. We can not shrug off the imperfections of this bill because there are a few positives. If my fellow members of the U.N. truly care for freedom of expression they will not allow any government to control the definition of freedom of expression. That is precisely what this proposal does.Jesus tittyfucking Christ, what version of this proposal have you been reading? Create a few harmless exemptions for things like slander, pornography and provocative speech, and suddenly we're creating a speech monopoly for governments! I suppose if the rest of us were to attempt interpreting law while snorting crack-cocaine laced with gunpowder and ground-up Klöllen testicles, that's how this resolution would read to us, too. Alas, the General Assembly's scheduled drug orgy has been postponed until after the debate, so in the meantime, what was it Rono Pyandran always used to say in situations like these?

Ah, yes.

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

Although our government is all in support of a free expression we prefer a broad notion of what this means in a practical sense. We hereby assert our support for free expression in terms of common law assumptions of what free expression really is, but are unwilling to limit the legal recourse and responsibilities by actively defining some forms of non-free expression at this point, preferring that our courts handle this.Well, first off, you have to work on your consistency. You spent the first three grafs of your post bemoaning the lack of "guidance" on interpreting the exemptions, but now you say you'd rather your courts be left to define non-free expression on their own. Barring that, your latter point is precisely what the listed exemptions are for, to give your courts latitude to define what does and does not constitute "free expression" in limited areas. Nations have widely different ideas as to what constitutes appropriate speech, so in a few narrow cases, this resolution gives nations the right to define that independently. You don't need the UN to hold your hand on everything; I'm sure your judges and politicians are quite capable of creating and interpreting applicable laws on defamation and provocative speech.

On a personal note, I might add that our nation currently outlaws public nudity, though it is only rarely enforced. Under the act public nudity could be seen as a form of free expression and our people would be loath to accept a sudden increase in the number of bottoms and such on the high streets. Erm, OK, so some guy likes to open his trenchcoat in public parks, and some other guy likes to expose himself in public restrooms. The only question you need ask yourself is this: are public parks and public restrooms considered "media" in your nation? Because otherwise, as far as we read it, such acts can still be outlawed in your nation.

OOC:

What, so chaste barristers don't get a look in in The true Barnettia?


I can only speak for lascivious barristers, having been one myself before taking this diplomatic post.

I would imagine some of our more, 'chaste' barristers would also get in on the act given half the chance. Don't even get me started on the lustful judges.

The last time we had a situation like That the whole judicial system fell apart. So many precedents here and there and convoluted raison d'etre that we had no choice but to scrap the entire legislative canon and start again.

Erm, OK, so some guy likes to open his trenchcoat in public parks, and some other guy likes to expose himself in public restrooms. The only question you need ask yourself is this: are public parks and public restrooms considered "media" in your nation? Because otherwise, as far as we read it, such acts can still be outlawed in your nation.

True, I rescind that point on the fact that the act applies to media only and apologise. Our people breathe a noticeable sigh of relief.



Barring that, your latter point is precisely what the listed exemptions are for, to give your courts latitude to define what does and does not constitute "free expression" in limited areas.

It is not, as you argue affording latitude to courts but creating a system of assumptions of what is and is not free expression that could quagmire our court system for decades. The act does not offer any sort of latitude, it is quite clearly stated that, ‘For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include…’ the exemptions on the list. As you rightly point out our, ‘judges and politicians are quite capable of creating and interpreting applicable laws on defamation and provocative speech’, you argue that the act allows for this, though I strain to find it.

If we accept that there is some sort of latitude then that latitude is, as you point out, found in the list of exemptions, and it is this interpretation that most worries us. Without a clear guiding principle you leave it up to our court system to argue over how, for example, ‘speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups’ applies to trade union literature proposing industrial action.

On the flip side, barristers will be desperately attempting to prove that the acts of their defendants do not fall within one of the exemptions.

Ultimately, we feel that the principle problem with this act is that, although it purports to be about freedom of expression it comes across more as a determination of what does not constitute free expression. Judging by the comments on the forum it seems to us that this is how the act is being perceived.

We believe that the act intends to reinforce the fundamental human right of free expression. This is something our nation is more than happy to ratify. However, by including a list of exemptions the act moves beyond fundamental human rights and into areas of law and definition that are beyond the scope of the initial intent.

Freedom of speech? Nonsense! Why should my people be free to do whatever they want when I am the one who is in the lead? I built my nation and no one within my nation wishes to have such an act as freedom of speech.

They are completly happy with the dictatorship, I award the citizens who behave and I punish those who doesn't. The Holy Dictatorship of MrColon will not tolerate any kind of criticism against the government, not that anyone wants to criticize us.

In the common interests of Freedom of Expression, it is the duty of those who champion this ideal to allow those that have the wish to speak their mind, no matter how wise or how idiotic their method of expression, to do so. Yet, it is not for the members of the United Nations as a whole to decide something that should be up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. This resolution should never have made it to the table, as each nation is quite capable of allowing such freedoms to exist already.

Whether or not they do so, will determine their character, and whether their people will let their leaders that support or oppose this ideal, to stay in power.

Therefore we in HawaiianFreedom vote Against this resolution.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

While the administration of Her Imperial Majesty Lania I applauds the spirit of this resolution, we cannot in good faith justify voting for it. We feel that the resolution is too flawed and poorly worded, and that the many dictatorships of the UN could severly limit the rights of their subjects while remaining within the provisions of the law. We feel that the resolution, as worded, is merely a paper tiger that does little to expand the freedoms our country already guarantees and allows too many loopholes for tyrants to exploit their people under the guise of "national security" or "enforcement of morality".

The Holy Empire of Imota votes AGAINST the Free Expression Act.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations

It Disallows The Ability To Be Like Me And My Comrades. It Disallows Us To Be "wrong". Please Vote No Before It's Too Late, I Plead With You, Comrades, To Vote No.

While the administration of Her Imperial Majesty Lania I applauds the spirit of this resolution, we cannot in good faith justify voting for it. We feel that the resolution is too flawed and poorly worded, and that the many dictatorships of the UN could severly limit the rights of their subjects while remaining within the provisions of the law. We feel that the resolution, as worded, is merely a paper tiger that does little to expand the freedoms our country already guarantees and allows too many loopholes for tyrants to exploit their people under the guise of "national security" or "enforcement of morality".

The Holy Empire of Imota votes AGAINST the Free Expression Act.

Burgen Alsonis, United Nations Ambassador for the Holy Empire of Imota.

Tis is the same way with the Land of Dragonia. The Prime Minister of the region (me) thinks thats its a great step forward for this new civil rights movement that the UN has seemed to be on lately. Yet, many of the other nations and ministers believe that is lessens the power for each nation to be what government it truly wants to be. Which I see, but I will say to you what I said to my region; I think every human being should be able to speak their minds and not be worried about being black bagged or killed the next day.

The official UN Delegate for the Land of Dragonia has voted FOR this act.

I don't believe this gives enough freedoms.


Remove the following:
For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:
- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.


And I would happily vote for. However, I cannot vote for this and stand idly by and let the UN decide what is false information, defamation, classified, personal, or pornographic in my country.

I don't believe this gives enough freedoms.

You don't believe it gives enough freedoms. Other nations believe it gives far too many. At some point, there's this thing called "compromise" that many of my fellow colleagues just don't seem to get.

Remove the following:
For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:
- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
- speech intended to incite widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization, including the government officials or entities, and members of political opposition groups;
- publicizing information deemed classified by governments for national security purposes;
- publicizing information of a strictly personal nature, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, financial records, or details on private legal consultations or private financial transactions;
- obscene, salacious or pornographic materials.

And I would happily vote for. However, I cannot vote for this and stand idly by and let the UN decide what is false information, defamation, classified, personal, or pornographic in my country.

Yet again, for those who are rules-averse, the section you cited can't be removed. The resolution is already at vote, and you can't change it once it is.

I'm also curious about exactly where you see a clause in the resolution where the UN will "decide what is false information, defamation, classified, personal, or pornographic in my country"? I'm not seeing it....perhaps because it isn't there. But why let facts get in the way of a rousing dose of paranoia?

The resolution at vote states that:

Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction.

Member nations are empowered to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.

Those are the operative clauses, as far as I can see. Where does it say there that the UN is determining anything as far as what content is classified as in your nation, or any other nation? And if you're going to cite the exclusions as UN "classification", that's no good either, because those matters are left up to the individual member states to determine.

And to my colleagues who are worried about loopholes, I won't beat the dead horse of respecting the rights of your fellow nations to determine legitimate and appropriate speech, because that plainly is no concern to many of you. I'll ask you this instead: do you really want to allow every form of speech to be allowed, with no regulation at all? Do you really want defamatory speech, speech whose goal is to cause disorder or violence, or personal information to be allowed without any form of control? Do you really want to allow people to be able to divulge all your national security information, with no restriction whatsoever? That frankly seems to be what you're aiming at here, and from experience, I can tell you that such a national policy is absurd and insane.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus, Former Prime Minister of Altanar

Thank you for that stout defense of common sense, Prime Minister. As always, you epitomize diplomatic style and eloquence ... [softly, to self:] and boy, do I have a thing for young, bald, Lex Luthor-types! ...

*ahem!*

At this time, the Federal Republic cares to respond to comments from a colleague over in the International Democratic Union, since we lack the necessary security clearance to reply there:

Originally Posted by Friendly IDU-type person http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1304&view=findpost&p=1947827)
Frankly, this is a piece of hogwash. It confuses freedom of expression for individuals with freedom of information (about the government and it activities) on the one hand, and tries to deal with the torts (private wrongs) of defamation and invaison of privacy as an exception to the definition of freedom of expression.Thank you for those kind words, Your Excellency! We're honored that would take the time and energy to address our proposal. However, if you had actually expended some of that time and energy reading it, you may have discovered that freedom of information is not at all relative to this document. What you likely skimmed over was an exception stating that publicizing classified materials does not constitute freedom of expression. Moreover, the proposal's intention is not to regulate civil law; invasion of privacy and defamation are only listed as exceptions so that nations can work out the relevant legal details on their own. As the prime minister so elegantly noted, freedom of expression cannot be absolute; nations need the latitude to prevent wrongs such as defamation and invasion of privacy, and without the listed exceptions, that would not be possible.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Doesn't everyone realize that this illegalizes pornography and phone books? I mean, come on, read the last two sentences!

Doesn't everyone realize that this illegalizes pornography and phone books? I mean, come on, read the last two sentences!
Um... what? All it does is say that, for the terms of the resolution, they aren't considered. As such, they remain within your own national laws. Unless I'm reading it wrong?

~ Hari Desana

By declaring it is free speech it should be that and that only. You have imposed restrictions on what is and is not free speech, which, in itself is not free. This is a typical western view that you can be free but you still have to follow rules or laws. To be truly free speech you should be able to say anything at all, regardless of whether it damages people's reputation. Considering this, people should also take everything said with a pinch of salt and realise that not everything people say is true. If you want to keep the "free speech" can you at least rename it 'the almost free speech' or ' not quite free but getting there speech'? I am voting against purely because of this.

Simaliia

Doesn't everyone realize that this illegalizes pornography and phone books? I mean, come on, read the last two sentences!

I doesn't make them illegal, it just doesn't protect them. If you nations wants to protect the right to make porn and phonebooks or even just ignore the issue entirely you can under this resolution(which is what I suspect almost everyone will do in regards to phonebooks).

This is what alot of the drive-by againsters seem to be missing as a point.

Making an exception for something is not banning it. It's ignoring it. It's allowing member states to define their own laws on it.

Also, I was thinking that we ban automobiles for use INSIDE the assembly hall, but I can't help but think it'd face opposition. Of the drive-by kind.

OOC: I bet we even have a drive through LANE, with bullet proof glass! Cause honestly, whats the UN security going to do about it, throw water balloons?

It kinda makes sense, I'm visualizing a bunch of loud people driving through the assembly hall, rifles blasting, machine guns shooting into the air, and a parting upturned finger on the way out(check out the smileys!). Maybe they even stop at a teller on the way, hit the button, wait for their turn, yell out their expletives and keep going.

Ehhhhhhhhh hmmmmmmmmmmm

A small figure in the back of the room stands up...

Fellow UN nations, up to this point I was willing to change my vote from against to in favor of. But...

I now have to ask what really is the point of this resolution? To enforce the freedom of expression that nations want if they want them? And if not what then?

A spy was planted in my UN office today under the guise of being a new member of my region. His purpose? to incite my region to go against my vote against this resolution. We would have welcomed him had he went thru the proper protocol of introducing himself in our embassy office, or telegrammed me first, but instead.... well you get the idea!

Who was this spy? None other than a puppet of the writer of this resolution!

It is for this reason that I highly question the true purpose of this resolution and have urged all my nations to vote against it!

Egy Nemzet

United Nations Delegate of the Genesis Federation

Ehhhhhhhhh hmmmmmmmmmmm

A small figure in the back of the room stands up...

Fellow UN nations, up to this point I was willing to change my vote from against to in favor of. But...

I now have to ask what really is the point of this resolution? To enforce the freedom of expression that nations want if they want them? And if not what then?

A spy was planted in my UN office today under the guise of being a new member of my region. His purpose? to incite my region to go against my vote against this resolution. We would have welcomed him had he went thru the proper protocol of introducing himself in our embassy office, or telegrammed me first, but instead.... well you get the idea!

Who was this spy? None other than a puppet of the writer of this resolution!

It is for this reason that I highly question the true purpose of this resolution and have urged all my nations to vote against it!

Egy Nemzet

United Nations Delegate of the Genesis Federation

Ah, quit yer bitchin'. That's a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Representative (pro tem)

Ah, quit yer bitchin'. That's a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Representative (pro tem)

Legit or not, very unclassy!

...Fellow UN nations, up to this point I was willing to change my vote from against to in favor of. But...

I now have to ask what really is the point of this resolution? The point is to have a workable resolution on the books that is flexible enough to implement in all 20,000+ member nations. A resolution that is neither too weak to accomplish anything, nor one that too heavily imposes a single morality on those nations.

A spy was planted in my UN office today under the guise of being a new member of my region. ... Who was this spy? None other than a puppet of the writer of this resolution!A spy, in the house of love... Honestly? If the intention was cloak-and-dagger spywork, you can bet you wouldn't have twigged to their true identity. So, instead of spying, perhaps what they were doing was answering the objections raised by you and your region? As Representative Schmidt indicated, it is a long-standing way to provide information to organizations who may be discussing a resolution without full information.

It is for this reason that I highly question the true purpose of this resolution and have urged all my nations to vote against it!Which calls into question your earlier statement that you were ready to change your vote to "for". Are you sure you didn't vote against on a personal choice and are now looking for rationale to support that decision?

--L.T.

Legit or not, very unclassy!Bullshit.

Attempting to convince you of the error of your ways isn't against the rules or unclassy. It's called convincing. You want to pull some excuse out of your hat to vote against it, come up with something solid.

Until then lose the superior attitude. Oh, and shut the hell up.

I posted my vote several days ago after weighing the opinions and types of nations in my region. So no, my vote is not nor will it ever be out of spite.

I just disagree with much of the wording of the resolution and thus far I have had no objections from my region on my vote.

Being the second largest in votes as a delegate voting on this resolution I can understand why those in favor would try to sway my opinion. But my vote still remains my vote.

So, don't tell me to shut up, please.

Much better, I'll lose my tone as well.

Lets address the actual issues you raised on your forums then?

First, it promotes a few democratic ideas in the name of freer speech, that's not bad. You can still keep your government types just as they are. This merely guarantees a few very basic freedoms of speech.

The UN is here to help, and not control, as you say. The important thing here is to remember this isn't controlling you. It's out here to help guide troubled nations without infringing to much on the rights of the ones on the right track. It does that job exceedingly well.

I just hope you understand the point, vote whichever way you wish, but it's not a bad resolution.

Bullshit.

Attempting to convince you of the error of your ways isn't against the rules or unclassy. It's called convincing. You want to pull some excuse out of your hat to vote against it, come up with something solid.

Until then lose the superior attitude. Oh, and shut the hell up.

Error of my ways?

In your opinion! Not the opinion of my region.

And again may I state in TGF we have a proper protocol that we ask be followed when entering our forum. If you don't like it, then you don't need to be there.

And your name calling, oh wait I forget you are for free expression! Is really very unclassy to say the least.

I just disagree with much of the wording of the resolution and thus far I have had no objections from my region on my vote. So what are your feelings about the posting of private correspondence, ambassador?


Until then lose the superior attitude. Oh, and shut the hell up.We hereby nominate the Dourian Embassy for the Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel Award.

It's not what one would exactly consider an honor, but a bucket of complementary popcorn accompanies the award.

--L.T.

We hereby nominate the Dourian Embassy for the Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel Award.

It's not what one would exactly consider an honor, but a bucket of complementary popcorn accompanies the award.
The Nord-Brutlandese would also like to add a block of purple Brute cheese to the award.

Thank you.

The Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation stated my regions opinion much better than I can.

"Freedom of Expression is a Sovereign Choice not a Global one.
In the common interests of Freedom of Expression, it is the duty of those who champion this ideal to allow those that have the wish to speak their mind, no matter how wise or how idiotic their method of expression, to do so. Yet, it is not for the members of the United Nations as a whole to decide something that should be up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. This resolution should never have made it to the table, as each nation is quite capable of allowing such freedoms to exist already.

Whether or not they do so, will determine their character, and whether their people will let their leaders that support or oppose this ideal, to stay in power."

Therefore Egy Nemzet delegate to The Genesis Federation votes Against this resolution.

Thank you.

I think I'll have Egy Nemzet's posts framed. They serve as a fitting metaphor for the hysteria and paranoia of the opposition as a whole. Then I'll have them declared "obscene" (because apparently anything can be classed as such), then deem them classified for national security purposes.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

(I'm deeply distressed that, after three days of attempting to post, the mods have refused my rights to FREE SPEECH to comment as a delegate.)

I spent several hours contacting the esteemed Delegates as to why they should not vote in favor of this resolution.

The fact remains that this is a piecemeal resolution that actually curtails freedom of speech. It's nice to title a bill "free expression" but when it has no weight and forwards government limitations on speech, we must vote against it.

The very words "disorder and violence" are the same words that were used in the United States to ban information about family planning and arrest any doctor who even mentioned contraception to a married couple.

The phrases "defamatory speech" and "incit[ing] widespread lawlessness and disorder" are the same tactics that have been used to ban any and all protest--whether it be of government, policy or religious freedom.

(If you wish for more information i would be glad to provide you with specific Supreme Court cases and specific statutes in case law.)

[IRL I am a law student. The words used in this resolution, and the phrasing of them, provides the government of a nation to curtail virtually anything they don't like--which is exactly what has happened in the past. There is absolutely no forwarding of freedom in this resolution, it simply provides loopholes for litigation and reasons to curtail speech. Furthermore, as the resolution is stated, EVERYTHING it attempts to forward is NEGATED by the clauses for what isn't consider free speech.]

We protect free speech not for what we consider an ideal that we all nod and smile about, but for the exact speech we find distasteful.

I urge everyone to vote against this resolution. Our concerns must be assuaged.

Thank you for your consideration and thought,
The Delegate of the Goal Crease, The Democratic Republic of Molzania

I think I'll have Egy Nemzet's posts framed. They serve as a fitting metaphor for the hysteria and paranoia of the opposition as a whole. Then I'll have them declared "obscene" (because apparently anything can be classed as such), then deem them classified for national security purposes.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Good idea.... you just might need that security, metaphoricaly speaking of course.

*Zarquon had been sitting idely at his desk sound asleep from all the constant droning that had been going on. He finally grew tired of hearing the bickering and decided to address the assmebly. Dusting himself off as he approached the podium.*

I have sat in this chamber during this entire debate, I've heard of every little thing that can be said to keep people from voting for this resolution. From phonebooks to pornography to plain old infringement of rights on sovereign nations.

What the Delegate from the Genesis Foundation has is a very sound argument. Should what is said in this resolution be left to the individual nations to decide? I feel it is appropriate to point out that this body just recently passed a proposal to abolish slavery. One could argue that that is an issue that should be left to individual nations, yet the better majority of us feel that it should be abandoned as an institution.

However, this needs to be said. You say that this subject should be left to individual nations. I feel I must now inform you that UN member nations have been charged with this before:

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

That is from R26: The Universal Bill of Rights.

The purpose of the resolution we are voting on is this.

1) This resolution reaffirms the right to all individuals that they have the right to express themselves freely without fear of reprisal, as is stated above.

2) This resolution requires nations observe these rights to individuals. Nations may still define what is appropriate means of expression in their borders.

3) This resolution gives nations power to enforce these freedoms through appropriate legislature that is made at the national level.

Yes, this is telling you that you need to observe the rights of individuals, but nations are still allowed to determine what is exceptable and what isn't.

Does this help?

I think I'll have Egy Nemzet's posts framed. They serve as a fitting metaphor for the hysteria and paranoia of the opposition as a whole.We're still pondering how he can be glowingly supportive and vehemently against all in one person. Split personality perhaps?

(I'm deeply distressed that, after three days of attempting to post, the mods have refused my rights to FREE SPEECH to comment as a delegate.) ooc:Your free speech has nothing to do with it. Before making such errant assumptions, you should avail yourself of the information provided by the mods in their forum (as well as other places).

I spent several hours contacting the esteemed Delegates as to why they should not vote in favor of this resolution.

The fact remains, [even if the mods are going to refuse to allow my opinions to be posted], that this is a piecemeal resolution that actually curtails freedom of speech. Welcome to the world of telegramming. Oh and you're really trying to cheese off the mods aren't you?

ic:Oh dear. What part of Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction did you misread? That an unreasonable nation is capable of twisting a piece of legislation into odd shapes doesn't make the legislation defective.

(If you wish for more information i would be glad to provide you with specific Supreme Court cases and specific statutes in case law.)

[IRL I am a law student. This isn't RL. The Supreme Court or its cases or the statutes it rules on do not exist. Period. Full stop.

But while we're on it, that mythical Supreme Court you reference has been consistent over the years in upholding the very same exceptions this resolution carves out as limiting free speech. Go figure. (See? You're not the only one handy with legal authority.)

We protect free speech not for what we consider an ideal that we all nod and smile about, but for the exact speech we find distasteful.We agree, we really do. We're also cognizant that there are 20,000 nations that have to implement this same resolution and that the middle-way is necessary.

--L.T.

"But while we're on it, that mythical Supreme Court you reference has been consistent over the years in upholding the very same exceptions this resolution carves out as limiting free speech. Go figure. (See? You're not the only one handy with legal authority."

It seems you're not educated in law, you didn't provide a single bit of legal evidence. This "mythical" Supreme Court has struck down the statutes i spoke of. In this "mythical" country i mentioned, the United States of America, one has the right to say their President should be lynched, their Capitol building should be burnt to the ground or they can burn flags enmasse.

The fact remains that you have not addressed anything i said. This resolution is INEFFECTUAL and does no forward freedom of speech, (i am and ACLU member who has fought tirelessly for civil liberties) it actually allows for one to CITE established international law--which this "mythical court" has upheld as precedent---as a basis for curtailing speech.

Simply put, it doesn't forward free speech, the clauses allow for all and any speech to be curtailed.

The Delegate of the Goal Crease, The Democratic Republic of Molzania.

Postscript: As i said if we vote for piecemeal resolutions, we are not forwarding freedom, we are simply nodding and smiling as if we were citizens of a dictatorial state such as China.
Late Edit: I fixed two small errors in grammar.

Postscript: As i said if we vote for piecemeal resolutions, we are not forwarding freedom, we are simply nodding and smiling as if we were citizens of a dictatorial state such as China.
Late Edit: I fixed two small errors in grammar.

OOC: I think there's one important thing that you're missing. This is not the real world. We may on occasion look at things that have happened in the real world to guide our proposals, but that's the extent of it. The US Supreme Court, the ACLU and China does not exist is this game, therefore we can't go about citing them in arguments.

We have to make resolutions that apply to dictatorships, monarchs, imperials, and numerous others. We can't apply the same types of laws that work in the US because we aren't working with that type of government in all 20,000+ nations, and not all governments are going to approve a mandate on freedoms.

Whilst these "fictional" governments and organizations do not exist, we still must understand the "real"[/"fake"] world implications of our votes.

One must understand what the clauses of what isn't considered free speech, still have similar implications and consiquences as we have seen in the "fictional" world.

If a nation chooses to see "disorder and violence" as one in the same as telling a married couple that there is such a thing as birth control--and be prosecuted for it--we must assume that in this reality that is also a possible outcome.

The point still remains the same, the resolution is ineffectual and does not forward free speech. I would argue the author has the best intentions, but everything they wanted to support has been negated, weakened and even challenged by the clauses of what isn't considered free speech for the purpose of this resolution.

The Democratic Republic of Molzania.

... We feel there is no need for any more of these they waste funds and time doing little but draining UN resources that need to be directed to other issues that need more attention and solutions. ...

Restleslie Inadreamora, GEN.DRG
Cavirrian Minister of Studies



General, the learned representative of Shazbotdom was pointing out that, as UN committees are staffed by the UN Gnomes, who are utterly irreproachable in their hygiene and only occasionally and forgivably little over-indulgent in the matter of food and drink, they cost the UN and its members nothing at all, in time, money or resources. (We understand they work from a pure and selfless love of good legislation, eat deleted proposals and drink the inspirational waters of the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool.)

Thus, while "too many committees" is a matter of opinion, "too many costly committees" is a matter of exaggeration.

On the proposal itself, Ardchoille has already voted FOR, encouraged by the significant clause

Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction.

That is all member nations are required to do. But it is a very important requirement: it means that UN member nations acknowledge that there is a right to free expression, and that we, as a group, feel it must be upheld. So even nations with little regard for individual rights, if they wish to stay in the UN, must uphold this ideal.

It may not be the magnificent storming of the barricades of oppression that many would like, but it has the advantage that it is do-able. The exceptions allow nations with specific reservations about personal privacy, national security or civil violence to support this right while still meeting their concerns.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

(hastily dons modhat)

Molzania, I just noticed your allegation that the mods have been deliberately preventing you from posting.

The mods haven't; your newness has. It's a Jolt glitch. It will go away soon. Please read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849).

(Incidentally, I've cleared the moderated-posts queue twice a day for the past three days, and other mods clear it when they log in, too, so any problem with posts not appearing may simply be that they appeared later, when you were offline. Worth checking back.)

Believe me, we have much more effective ways of preventing people from posting, but we don't use them for absurd reasons, such as disagreeing with the poster's opinions. Indeed, if one mod disagreed with you, it's just as likely that two other mods would agree, because we're not homogenous politically.

Maybe a little homogenously cheesed off right now, though.

OOC: Molzania, would the real life UN be able to pass a total free speech resolution? No, they wouldn't. China is on the Security Council, so is Russia(and these days I doubt they'd vote for such a thing) for that matter. I doubt they'd even be able to pass THIS.

You face the same hurdles here, and this resolution you most vehemently oppose is also opposed by much worse dictatorships here. Mainly because of the freedoms it does allow.

Allowances and exceptions are not restrictions, they allow each nation to set it's own standards and laws.

Lets try baby steps, not giant leaps forwards.

I hope you'll be so kind as to indulge a former UN 'activist' of sorts. When my predecessor, Varia Yefremova, submitted 'Freedom of Conscience' for the UN's approval, she encountered opposition from some - not least from the Kennyite delegation, ironically - who were disappointed that there were 'politically correct' exemptions. Her justification at the time was that she wanted to guarantee a minimum level of freedom without isolating and offending less liberal peoples. The right to express one's political views without fear of persecution is held sacrosanct. The right to act violently in the name of one's views is not.

It is therefore quite gratifying to witness a sensible campaign for legislative reform spearheaded by the very people who originally opposed our own efforts. I congratulate Cdr. Chiang for her excellent draftsmanship.

Freedom of conscience, expression and assembly in Ecopoeia are protected to a far greater degree than required by any of the pertinent UN resolutions; there is nothing here preventing a liberal-minded nation from adopting more stringent legislation. The resolution requires a pragmatic bare minimum and should thus be accorded the UN's support.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Good idea.... you just might need that security, metaphoricaly speaking of course.Was that a threat? 'Cause it's freakin' hilarious!! http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

It seems you're not educated in law, you didn't provide a single bit of legal evidence. This "mythical" Supreme Court has struck down the statutes i spoke of.Actually, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld proscriptions against inciting violence, disorder, and rebellion against the government. It's partly why they are included as exceptions to free expression. If you have the relevant caselaw in front of you, by all means, post it... but post it in General. Don't jack my thread.

In this "mythical" country i mentioned, the United States of America, one has the right to say their President should be lynched, their Capitol building should be burnt to the ground or they can burn flags enmasse.You have no right to threaten the president or advocate the violent destruction of government property, and if you think you do, you're only fooling yourself.

The fact remains that you have not addressed anything i said.Well, let's address it right now, shall we?

This resolution is INEFFECTUAL and does no forward freedom of speech, (i am and ACLU member who has fought tirelessly for civil liberties) it actually allows for one to CITE established international law--which this "mythical court" has upheld as precedent---as a basis for curtailing speech.

Simply put, it doesn't forward free speech, the clauses allow for all and any speech to be curtailed.

If a nation chooses to see "disorder and violence" as one in the same as telling a married couple that there is such a thing as birth control--and be prosecuted for it--we must assume that in this reality that is also a possible outcome.

The point still remains the same, the resolution is ineffectual and does not forward free speech. I would argue the author has the best intentions, but everything they wanted to support has been negated, weakened and even challenged by the clauses of what isn't considered free speech for the purpose of this resolution.This is one of the differences between RL and NS that you apparently refuse to acknowledge (aside from the fact that your supposed ACLU and law-school credentials mean nothing here): in the NUSN, stupid interpretations of law are usually ignored by most serious players. You can be as stupid as you like in RL, and probably win a lawsuit; in NS, stupidity earns you no brownie points. It sort of acts as a natural buffer against nations who would argue that narrow exceptions for obscene, violent and disorderly speech mean they can curtail all forms of expression under this mandate. Good day.

In this "mythical" country i mentioned, the United States of America, one has the right to say their President should be lynched, their Capitol building should be burnt to the ground or they can burn flags enmasse.

Not to perpetuate the thread hacking but OMGTKK is absolutely right, if you said that and the right people hear it, you can be arrested. You're not able to threaten the president, or public property, nor are you allowed to yell fire in a crowded place when there is none. There are limits to free speech in democracies, as there are limits in this proposal.

Nigel Yolkin
USP UN Ambassador.

I don't consider voicing my concerns to be thread hijacking. They have not been assuaged and i cannot vote for the resolution.

(hastily dons modhat)

Molzania, I just noticed your allegation that the mods have been deliberately preventing you from posting.

The mods haven't; your newness has. It's a Jolt glitch. It will go away soon. Please read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849).

Thank you very much for your response. I am sorry if it sounded accusatory, that wasn't my intention. I do appreciate the link and it has helped. :)

OOC: Molzania, would the real life UN be able to pass a total free speech resolution? No, they wouldn't. China is on the Security Council, so is Russia(and these days I doubt they'd vote for such a thing) for that matter. I doubt they'd even be able to pass THIS.

You face the same hurdles here, and this resolution you most vehemently oppose is also opposed by much worse dictatorships here. Mainly because of the freedoms it does allow.

Allowances and exceptions are not restrictions, they allow each nation to set it's own standards and laws.

Lets try baby steps, not giant leaps forwards.
This is, by far, the best response to my concerns. If anything came close to getting me to change my mind, it was this argument.
-----
Now to address the discussions of OOC law and my "credentials." I only mentioned the legal education because it was a qualifier for the following remarks in that OOC paragraph. I only mentioned the ACLU, who i do not speak for, to get the point across that i care deeply about free speech and i'm not some random UN hater here to stir up trouble.

As for free speech and violence. One must understand that there must be a compelling government reason to ban it and if it involves things violence or hate speech, it must present the opportunity for an imminent lawless action. (clear and present danger test: Dennis v US.)
(imminent lawless action [overruled Dennis]: Brandenburg v Ohio)

One cannot send the President letters about how they are going to kill him and one cannot hold a rally in front of the Capitol building where they say things like "lets storm the building and burn it to the ground".

Another prohibition on speech would be "fighting words". If one says things or does things to another individual that invite fighting with an immediate threat, they can be prosecuted. (Chaplinksy v New Hampshire--for one on one.)

However, one can go out and hold a sign that says the "President should be shot and the Capitol bulldozed, for some various reason." One can also say these things as a rally to a crowd where there isn't the threat of an imminent lawless action. An example of this would be those people who put on their little nazi or kkk uniforms and march around talking about wiping out races, lynchings, etc. Fred Phelps is another example of this.

Curtailing free speech involves strict scrutiny and a compelling government interest. Someone mentioned yelling fire in a theater. The reason why you can't do that is because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the safety of it's citizens, having them trampled over free speech isn't a good idea.
------
Again, i have qualms with this resolution and had there been a few changes to the wording, such as qualifiers to the clauses stating "where an imminent threat is present", etc, i would have voted for it. I am sure the author had the best intentions, but choose his words poorly and they can easily be construed to included virtually everything we are attempting to champion here.

With that said, i thank you for your time and patience,
The Democratic Republic of Molzania
Postscript: I will not bother posting again on this topic. I've made my point and don't wish to make people believe i am beating a dead horse or hijacking their thread.

Yeah, I got the same basics-for-beginners stuff in my Introduction to Law course for my bachelor's. At any rate, I hardly think this resolution should be rejected simply because it doesn't split enough hairs with its definitions. Governments who would honestly try to stretch these exceptions to mean something far beyond their intent probably would a) try to find their way out of any resolution that came before this floor, even those precisely defined to your preferred specifications, and b) be better off resigning from the UN, anyway.

All that aside, I did ask you not to recite the caselaw to me, but I appreciate your efforts to remain on topic.

What a stirling piece of legislation. The Government of Putzi can't wait for it to squeeze home by a vote or three; then we can start willfully misinterpreting it in preparation for our required internal legistation.

Governments who would honestly try to stretch these exceptions to mean something far beyond their intent probably would a) try to find their way out of any resolution that came before this floor, even those precisely defined to your preferred specifications, and b) be better off resigning from the UN, anyway.

Yes, part a) is definitely us! But following part b) would remove the mantle of respectability that comes from being a very small and reluctant part of the UN. It sends a message to visitors to Putzi that if something goes wrong here for them...well at least we're part of the UN and so nothing nasty will happen to them because of the UN resolutions we have been required to enact begin enacting...how wrong they are! :D

this issue is difficult to address. every nation has its own culture, so imposing one nations perceptions on "free speech" and "freedom of expression" may clash with the perceptions of many more, and vice versa.

who is to say what is "free", "restrictive", etc? some cultures find it acceptable to remove the females clitoris at birth or in the early stages of life, while other cultures will find this horrid and unacceptable. who are we to tell this culture that they may not practice this concrete tradition simply because we do not accept it?

i, for one, oppose this proposal. my citizens are more than comfortable with their rights, duties, and freedoms. i believe there are more important issues to tackle.

that is all.

-messiah intellekt.

:cool:

Some do not bother to listen to some messages. What is free expression worth if the audience yawns at the message and makes it irrelevant? Say something truthful to expose the Emperor's nakedness and then get mocked and thrown into the silences of irrelevance. Free expression? Only if you follow the very complex rules which are unwritten for the uninitiated, and the cost to be one of the initiated? Well its very costly, my dear, very costly. So free expression as a concept is but another illusion to make us all feel good while we go on to shut out the wise who try to lead us to enlightenment.

Sophists are still in control, my dear philosophers, to our common detriment. :eek:

:cool:

Some do not bother to listen to some messages. What is free expression worth if the audience yawns at the message and makes it irrelevant? Say something truthful to expose the Emperor's nakedness and then get mocked and thrown into the silences of irrelevance. Free expression? Only if you follow the very complex rules which are unwritten for the uninitiated, and the cost to be one of the initiated? Well its very costly, my dear, very costly. So free expression as a concept is but another illusion to make us all feel good while we go on to shut out the wise who try to lead us to enlightenment.

Sophists are still in control, my dear philosophers, to our common detriment. :eek:

Why is it that those least often in possession of something worthwhile to express are the ones who feel a more frequent need to exercise their freedom to express?

And why is this especially true in the halls of the United Nations?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Isn't LEGISLATING freedom just taking it away with a different name? Vote against this proposal please.

who is to say what is "free", "restrictive", etc? some cultures find it acceptable to remove the females clitoris at birth or in the early stages of life, while other cultures will find this horrid and unacceptable.The UN has already outlawed Female Genital Mutilation. This is the debate of speech. Try to stay on topic.

Isn't LEGISLATING freedom just taking it away with a different name? Vote against this proposal please.No, and take your post-modernist dictionary with you. Prohibiting the government from abridging rights is not the same thing as abridging the rights of the individual.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Holy Empire of Imota

The administration of Her Imperial Majesty Lania I reiterates its opinion that the resolution, as currently worded, is a paper tiger for the cause it claims to champion. It is so vague and pointless that it is almost impossible for any nation to fail to comply. We would also like to add that many highly oppressive governments could be interpreted as "in compliance" because we feel that the clause that requires nations to recognise free expression as a right is cut down at the knees by possible interpretations of the exceptions. We may be called unreasonable by the supporters of the resolution, but we are merely concerned that unreasonable opponents of free expression will bend this paper tiger to their will and still claim to support "free expression". The United Nations does not exist to waste time and energy on meaningless legislation. The United Nations does not exist to force itself on others. The United Nations exists as a community of nations united for the cause of global cooperation, not coercion.

The Holy Empire of Imota reaffirms its vote AGAINST the Free Expression Act.

Deuma Litosi, Acting Ambassador to the United Nations (Ambassador to the Region)

Just saying "No" and using funny sounding words does not make you right. My dictionary may or may not be post modern. However, when laws exist that define what one may or may not call "free", then said laws are nothing more than inroads to future reductions of the freedoms they claim to "protect" today.

Vote AGAINST this proposal please!

We would also like to add that many highly oppressive governments could be interpreted as "in compliance" because we feel that the clause that requires nations to recognise free expression as a right is cut down at the knees by possible interpretations of the exceptions.The same could be said for any resolution. Any unreasonable government can make unreasonable assumptions and wriggle its way out of any possible law this body could pass.

This is why proposals are written for reasonable nations, as opposed to spend all day tilting at the windmills of unreasonable nations and their interpretations. Or, as Voltaire said, "the perfect is the enemy of the good".


Just saying "No" and using funny sounding words does not make you right. My dictionary may or may not be post modern. However, when laws exist that define what one may or may not call "free", then said laws are nothing more than inroads to future reductions of the freedoms they claim to "protect" today.You aren't making any damn sense. But if you want to play on a slippery slope, that's your choice; just don't expect people to take you seriously.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

From The Department of International Affiars:

Isn't this subject is covered in The UN Resolution #26. It states that: "All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference. " Just a thought.

Sincerely,
Dictator of Talentay,
Lord Ragan II

From The Department of International Affiars:

Isn't this subject is covered in The UN Resolution #26. It states that: "All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference. " Just a though.

Sincerely,
Dictator of Talentay,
Lord Ragan II
Not only that, it doesn't even cover free speech. It allows for further exceptions banning information about family planning for married couples. It doesn't protect speech at all. And, as the most recent international resolution, it can be used to negate past resolutions.

And, as the most recent international resolution, it can be used to negate past resolutions.
OOC: Uh, what? No, it doesn't, and if it did it would have been deleted before it got to the full vote. Resolutions cannot contradict other standing resolutions. The only way to (legally) 'negate' past resolutions is be repealing.

Yes, this may clarify or limit past resolutions. Yes, it may limit future resolutions. But it does not negate them.

(Not saying I agree with everything else you said, this just caught my eye).

You aren't making any damn sense. But if you want to play on a slippery slope, that's your choice; just don't expect people to take you seriously.You still have not answered my question as to WHY legislating freedom is not the same as attacking it. All you said was "No" Not exactly a scintillating debate if you get my drift.

The Oppressed Peoples of Moe-zambique are PROUD to vote AGAINST this proposal.

I'd like to vote FOR the resolution except for the part that says pornography isn't considered freedom of speech and as much as I don't want to end up a John Kerry on something by voting AGAINST it, I think I'm just going to sit this one out.

Ya'll were doing so good until you said that legal porn (no kids, no snuff films, etc.) was not covered. Tsk, tsk.

Jimmy was trained to expect most anything when arriving in a Kennyite diplomatic office, but he still wasn't prepared for what awaited him in Sammy's UN suite that fateful New Years' morning. Well, actually, all Kennyite diplomats are supposedly prepared to deal with any contingency, but like any good Kennyite diplomat, Jimmy choked.

"Ambassador, what the hell is going on in here?" he demanded as he beheld a handful of people, seated cross-legged on the floor, bound and gagged. "Who are these people?"

"Lobbying," Susa said plainly. "If you must know, they're the ambassadors from Egy Nemzet, Cavirra and Molzania respectively ... or some blackjack dealers from the casino; I didn't really ask for ID. Anyway, do you mind? This is a private meeting."

"It looks like you're holding them against their will!" Jimmy observed with a note of fear.

"Not their will, God's will! 'Cause that's the only will that matters!" Susa replied.

With some alarm, Jimmy noted the video camera facing the captives. "Oh my God, Ambassador," he said, "you're not actually going to ... to ..."

"Nah, I'll let them go as soon as they change their votes," the ambassador said casually. "I just want to put something out letting everyone know they're OK first. We got a hook-up straight to that big screen in the GA!"

"You know, Ambassador, this could be seen as a ... ransom video."

"Ransom?!" Susa interjected. "Ah, sweet! You mean we can get paid for this shit? How much do you think we should ask for?"

"Er, I don't think that's a good idea," said Jimmy.

"Whatever. Let's do this thing. Turn on the camera for me, Jimmy, will ya?"

"Ambassador, I'm not going to party to ... to ..."

"Just turn the camera on, you pussy!"

"But ..."

"Turn it on or you're fired!"

"I told you before, you don't have the authority to fire me ..."

"Turn it on!!"

Jimmy made reluctantly to comply, when a few really short people barged in on their conference.

"Sirs, we wanted to verify that-- what the hell is this?!" said one of the visitors when he saw the gagged men. "I'll have you know, gentlemen, Kennyite or not, this sort of behavior is not tolerated in these halls--!"

"Fucking gnomes," Susa groused as he seized his handy AK-47 and fired at them.

"Ambassador, you're coffee," said an aid.

"Ah, thanks, beautiful," Susa said as he grabbed the cup and took a test-sip. "AUGGHHH!! Hot!!! Hot!!! Jermy! Mee tunghe! Ithz bunnnin upppe!!!"

"Your laundry, Ambassador," said another aid as she shoved a basket of bedsheets toward him. "Mutt duh helll??!!" Susa shouted as he turned, crashed into the aid, and ended up with the basket on his head. "AAAUUUGGGHH!! Ditt idd oaf!! Didd idd oaf!!" He managed to free himself from the basket and the cascade of sheets and blankets, but somehow in the struggle a black pillowcase had shoved itself onto his head.

Just then, Jimmy, who had been trying to figure out the controls on the camera and wasn't paying the scene before him much attention, turned on the camera, and instantly, the proceedings in the main chamber were interrupted by a grainy video of three frightened bound captives sitting on the floor, with a menacing black-hooded figure hovering over them, brandishing a semi-automatic weapon and threatening the assembly in some strange foreign language.

The Nuncia of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp) looked up and noticed the GA chamber's main video screen had blinked to life. She watched the goings on onscreen curiously, and then turned to one of her secretaries. "Could you get us some popcorn?" she said, "Noone told me it was gameshow night, and this new one looks interesting."

Why is it that those least often in possession of something worthwhile to express are the ones who feel a more frequent need to exercise their freedom to express?

And why is this especially true in the halls of the United Nations?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

:D
Ironic but true. I applaud my fellow philosopher with his gem of wisdom, couldn't have expressed it better myself! :rolleyes:

Thanks to a really strange alliance between liberal leftists utopias and conservative dictatorships, the moderates fail to pass this resolution.

Which is a shame. But hopefully, the UN will address free speech soon, and will hopefully agree to the various reasonable restrictions that OMGTKK argued for...altough, that will take time.

The Left/Right Alliance just cut off their nose to spite their face. It's cool. At least they can agree on one thing:

"The moderate solution is wrong!"

...the proceedings in the main chamber were interrupted by a grainy video of three frightened bound captives sitting on the floor, with a menacing black-hooded figure hovering over them, brandishing a semi-automatic weapon and threatening the assembly in some strange foreign language.The collective gasp in the assembly hall drew Leetha's attention away from her reading. Looking first at the delegates and then following their gaze to the main monitor she took in the scene with a critical eye.

"Whoever it is should learn proper weapon handling technique."


Thanks to a really strange alliance between liberal leftists utopias and conservative dictatorships, the moderates fail to pass this resolution.What alliance? An alliance implies coordination and agreement. One group thought it too restrictive, another objected to the rights granted, still others saw loopholes where there were none. That's no alliance and any attempts to designate it such and act accordingly are pretty much up the proverbial creek sans paddle.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

What alliance? An alliance implies coordination and agreement. One group thought it too restrictive, another objected to the rights granted, still others saw loopholes where there were none. That's no alliance and any attempts to designate it such and act accordingly are pretty much up the proverbial creek sans paddle.

OOC: I use alliance in a more generic sense of that both sides felt that it was wrong and therefore voted AGAINST. If only one group was against it, and the other abstaiend or voted for, then the resolution might have had a chance, but since all the groups voted AGAINST together, their might caused the resolution to fail.

I don't mean an alliance as in they all co-ordinated together, just that each person's actions played a role. After all, Nevadar's votes played as much of a role in defeating this resolution as the Paficics' votes and the Socialists' votes, and it is better to assign credit to both sides rather than merely to one or another. Still, maybe a better word should be used to describe this...Unlikey Coalition?

I can't speak for others, but I voted against the resolution partially because porn was not gonna be protected under free speech and I feel everything should be allowed (even stuff I don't like, although I do like porn).

OOC: I use alliance in a more generic sense of that both sides felt that it was wrong and therefore voted AGAINST. OOC: That's not particularly correct either. Looking at the voting list, there are just as many lefty regions voting for as voting against and a similar pile of righties split between the two sides. We're talking about a difference of 71 votes, which means you won't find voting trends there. And that's supported by the variety of comments here.

You mention Nevadar and Gatesville's vote. Nevadar publicly called the resolution a piece of UN commie trash (paraphrasing here, but UN and commie were definitely in the mix). Is that a rational, political analysis of the resolution? There weren't any sides. Some socialists liked it; some didn't. Some capitalist economy folks thought it was swell; some didn't.

(OOC: Okay, okay, so I'll retract my OOC statements. Though, personally, I don't see any vote happening in the UN as being unjustified or wrongheaded or anything. So, er...but that's another topic that I don't want to go into.)

(OOC: ... Though, personally, I don't see any vote happening in the UN as being unjustified or wrongheaded or anything. ...)OOC: Neither do I. That's why I don't like to see voters (either regional or national) corralled into false groups. :)

:D
Ironic but true. I applaud my fellow philosopher with his gem of wisdom, couldn't have expressed it better myself! :rolleyes:

Thank you kindly. It seems we are joined in cheerfully useless proclamations.

Perhaps we should be drinking buddies.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I come back from vacation and find that the first thing the UN does this year is vote down a resolution on free speech. Did someone declare 2008 to be opposite year or something? This should've been a frakking slam dunk.

I can't speak for others, but I voted against the resolution partially because porn was not gonna be protected under free speech and I feel everything should be allowed (even stuff I don't like, although I do like porn).

Just because the resolution didn't protect porn, doesn't mean your nation couldn't do it on their own.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I for one am ashamed at this body for not passing something that was so blatantly obvious. I can no longer stomach these debates, and hereby resign my position as Ambassador to my nation. I only hope that this body may one day find common sense before it leaps head first into an erupting volcano to see it orange stuff is hot. Good day.

*Zarquon has left the building.*

I for one am glad that resolution god voted down. The UN has to allow everyone into it's gates and that means theocracy's , monarchies , and dictatorships. The total freedom of speech will have an adverse effect on these societies. Sure it will improve your democracy but (if you don't already have free speech ) but it will hurt my theocracy, and the way my government takes on its mission, the mission that the military has sworn to protect. If the UN wants to promote free speech thats fine by me but regulating it, no thanks. I voted against.

Thank you kindly. It seems we are joined in cheerfully useless proclamations.

Perhaps we should be drinking buddies.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

dunno what either of you are talking about, but if either of ya buy me a drink, I'll graciously accept! Hooah! And I'll add cheerful proclamations too!

A year and a day ago, we joined this organization. At that point, the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny had sent to vote a proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512686) of eminent sensibility, which the voters were inexplicably rejecting...

Sam, are you sure you didn't spike my drink?

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

Though disappointed at this setback, Ardchoille's government (when sober) retains its commitment to the Fabian concept of changing the world by, as our Rubinan colleague expressed it, "baby steps".

We are encouraged in this view by the emergence within the previously very Rouge nation of Omigodthekilledkenny of reasonable, intelligent, educated national leaders who find it possible to submit such an admirably even-handed proposal.

I would like to make public my personal thanks to Cdr Chiang, who has so ably represented in this Assembly this more enlightened, younger group, and to whom I owe a great deal for her support and advice in ... difficult times.

*makes wide gesture involving much display of engagement ring*

-- Avaya Thibaudet, wrongfully Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ardchoille.

I'm of the opinion that the Kennyites have finally gone nuts.

Still sucks that this resolution died.

Regardless of whether or not there was an alliance or not, a majority of voting nations agreed that the Act was not fit to be implemented. The people have spoken and have chosen freedom over coercion.

To all those who stood with us in opposing the Act, thank you.

I hate to tell you this, but the mindless whims of TAO and his West Pacific comrades hardly represent the will of "the people."

The people have spoken and have chosen freedom over coercion.

No, "the people", meaning "the people who can't read and who jump to ridiculous conclusions", have spoken and chosen to vote down a resolution that would have ensured freedom of expression without infringing on the rights of sovereign nations. As such, "the people" have nothing to be proud of.

You say that "the people" have chosen freedom. What freedom did "the people" choose? With the defeat of this resolution, valuable measures to protect free expression were voted down as well, leaving nations free to infringe upon that right however they choose. With mindless misinterpretations and babbling about things like pornography, "the people" chose to ignore the fact that this resolution would have protected most forms of expression, while allowing nations to choose how they would address harmful or controversial forms of expression, as they should. And with their idiotic and selfish insistence on an "all or nothing" approach, "the people" ignored the sensible path of compromise and respect for their fellow nations, and instead defenestrated the baby with the bathwater. As a result, now we have nothing.

There are no words capable of expressing the distaste, disgust and utter contempt that the delegates of Altanar, and indeed every sensible Altanari, feel for the nations that voted against this resolution.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

The resolution "Free Expression Act" was defeated 3,657 votes to 3,586.

Shame. As Quod said, like Prohibition of UN Military, this is another sensible Kennyian proposal to be defeated.

On a statistical note, this resolution failed by 71 votes, making it the (2nd) closest margin by number of votes since Resolution #1, which technically failed by a margin of 1 vote. This margin surpassed "Worldwide Media Act," which failed by only 100 votes.

I must rise to voice agreement with my colleague from Altinar. The delegation from OMGTKK brought forth a solid resolution and "The People" locked on to catch phrases and talking points to destroy it. Rather than read and learn they skimmed and over-reacted, as always.

Luckily the USP has always had a long standing preservation for the people right to expression so our people will not suffer from the ignorance of those who voted this down.


Nigel Youlkin
USP UN Ambassador.

[...] With the defeat of this resolution, valuable measures to protect free expression were voted down as well, leaving nations free to infringe upon that right however they choose. With mindless misinterpretations and babbling about things like pornography, "the people" chose to ignore the fact that this resolution would have protected most forms of expression, while allowing nations to choose how they would address harmful or controversial forms of expression, as they should. And with their idiotic and selfish insistence on an "all or nothing" approach, "the people" ignored the sensible path of compromise and respect for their fellow nations, and instead defenestrated the baby with the bathwater. As a result, now we have nothing.


If a law says: "it ensures freedom of expression but freedom of expression do not include defamation, except against politicians" what it says is: "it ensures the freedom of defaming politicians telling lies about them" regardless for the REAL intent of the law-writer.

In United Nations we cannot modify passed resolution, we can only totally repeal them, so yes, it's better to have no laws at all than a bad law.

The Federation of Lucanian Shires rejoices for this horror avoided.

Gloria di Proton, UN Ambassador of the Federation of Lucanian Shires.

If a law says: "it ensures freedom of expression but freedom of expression do not include defamation, except against politicians" what it says is: "it ensures the freedom of defaming politicians telling lies about them" regardless for the REAL intent of the law-writer.

In United Nations we cannot modify passed resolution, we can only totally repeal them, so yes, it's better to have no laws at all than a bad law.

The Federation of Lucanian Shires rejoices for this horror avoided.Look, if critics of this resolution were so dense as to suggest that other exceptions in the last clause could be stretched to include anything, don't you think an exception for defaming government officials could be stretched to mean that nations could outlaw criticizing the government? Telling lies about politicians can't possibly be banned; otherwise all politicians could be locked up/sued for defaming their colleagues (which, admittedly, may not be such a bad thing). But that could also extend to private citizens. Do you honestly want private citizens to be sued (or even arrested) for "defaming" their leaders, whether the accusations are true or not? No, I didn't think so.

That said, this resolution has failed, so I don't see what the continued gloating would hope to accomplish.

No, "the people", meaning "the people who can't read and who jump to ridiculous conclusions", have spoken and chosen to vote down a resolution that would have ensured freedom of expression without infringing on the rights of sovereign nations. As such, "the people" have nothing to be proud of.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

I find it rather offensive that you jump to the 'ridiculous conclusion' that everyone who voted against the proposal can't read. Or that we make ridiculous conclusions ourselves. I voted against the proposal, for a variety of reasons, and chose not to bring those reasons here because there is no way for them to be addressed while the bill is up for vote. Specifically, the first exception is utterly abhorrent to us, as it specifically protects 'free expression' in the form of defamatory speech against the government or political leaders. Perhaps you may like it that way, but we do not.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

You say that "the people" have chosen freedom. What freedom did "the people" choose?

"What if he wasn't talking about the freedom of expression? What if he was talking about the right of governments to commit censorship in other areas, not just the ones listed here? Or what if he believed that a "freedom of expression" resolution, no matter how 'weak' it appears to be, shouldn't be enforced on all nations as that would infringe on a person's right to rule a nation however they want?

What if they are fighting for the freedom for leaders to choose, not for the freedom for people to speak? What if they were speaking against the cocerion of the UN?

...Of course, that's just a minor criticism of your point. We agree with you totally though, this resolution should have been agreed upon, that all people should have the right to speak, and leaders shouldn't get the right to censor except in extreme cirmustances, and the failure to pass this resolution will be noted in the annals of UN history to come."
---Dr. Bob

I find it rather offensive that you jump to the 'ridiculous conclusion' that everyone who voted against the proposal can't read. Or that we make ridiculous conclusions ourselves.

I find it rather offensive that most (admittedly not all, but most) of the nations that voted against this resolution did so in complete ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the facts.

I voted against the proposal, for a variety of reasons, and chose not to bring those reasons here because there is no way for them to be addressed while the bill is up for vote. Specifically, the first exception is utterly abhorrent to us, as it specifically protects 'free expression' in the form of defamatory speech against the government or political leaders. Perhaps you may like it that way, but we do not.

If you didn't bother to bring up your objections during the vote, or during the drafting of the resolution for that matter, then they are meaningless. As for the first exception, and your objections to it, the government, and political leaders, are public entities and public figures. Getting mud slung at you as a government, or when you're in the public eye, comes with the territory, Madam Ambassador. If you can't handle it, stay home and knit tea cozies.

And on that note, I can't help but agree with the honorable delegate from OMGTKK that further discussion on this matter is pointless, but I sincerely hope that this does not mark the end of efforts by the sane delegates of the UN to protect free expression. And while free expression requires that one allow idiots to have their say, we Altanari don't have to remain around to listen to it. Good day.

The Altanari delegation exits the GA behind Krytellin

Thank you kindly. It seems we are joined in cheerfully useless proclamations.

Perhaps we should be drinking buddies.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

:confused:
Our statements are never useless. They only become thus because the audience refuses to learn from them. We only speak on the right occasion and we do not tweet our horn at every whim, rather we conduct a beautiful orchestra if they would only stop trying to play against each other whatever fancies them and pay attention to real wisdom when it arrives. If you actually look as to when we make statements, it is readily evident how often we express ourselves, therefore we do not fall under the category of saying nonsense at every whim; rather, we express truisms at the right moment to illustrate an already established fact. I had hoped someone would have noticed. :headbang:

Our statements are never useless.
The Ambassador keeps a straight face, largely through not having been paying attention at the time, but the rest of the Gobbannaen delegation corpse noisily

If a law says: "it ensures freedom of expression but freedom of expression do not include defamation, except against politicians" what it says is: "it ensures the freedom of defaming politicians telling lies about them" regardless for the REAL intent of the law-writer.
"We must congratulate the honoured ambassador on producing one of the most incomprehensible objections to date. If he would be so good as to render "what it says" in a grammatically meaningful form, we would be happy to debate with him; in the mean time we can but offer baffled looks."

We of Ice Forge are most appalled by the failure of this act. While many may look at us as a nation that would benefit from censorship, we are of the firm belief that the only good way to go against what is said by someone is to say something back, not to shut them up! In addition, we look with (mild) scorn on the conservative nations that claimed that free speech would impede their governments. If your government is unable to stand up when knowledge is made available to the public at large, does it really have any business ruling them?

While Ice Forge is unable to speak for its regional neighbors, we say that we will fully support any revision and resubmission of such an act.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep of Ice Forge

OOC: Can someone tell me of a forum where i could try and find a more... politically active region to move too? Because my current region is rather... apathetic. (sorry for the out of place question!)

"We must congratulate the honoured ambassador on producing one of the most incomprehensible objections to date. If he would be so good as to render "what it says" in a grammatically meaningful form, we would be happy to debate with him; in the mean time we can but offer baffled looks."

After dismissing her personal translator, mr Google Translator Gloria di Proton says:

"Free Expression Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

[...]

Be it therefore resolved:

Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction.

For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;
[...]
"

This means:

"Member nations are required to uphold rights of using defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of government institutions and political leaders using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness"

And we are AGAINST

Look, if critics of this resolution were so dense as to suggest that other exceptions in the last clause could be stretched to include anything, don't you think an exception for defaming government officials could be stretched to mean that nations could outlaw criticizing the government? Telling lies about politicians can't possibly be banned; otherwise all politicians could be locked up/sued for defaming their colleagues (which, admittedly, may not be such a bad thing). But that could also extend to private citizens. Do you honestly want private citizens to be sued (or even arrested) for "defaming" their leaders, whether the accusations are true or not? No, I didn't think so.

And we think this makes no sense at all.

If this resolution were passed would have given the right to a political leader who owns newspapers and TV the right to brainwashing voters with lies against his political opponents.

And we think this was the DEATH of the democracy and not at all "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms"

PS: and 'The Anti-Government Hour' is a popular programme on many of Lucanian Shires's radio stations, so don't tell lies like we are against the freedom of free expression.

Kind regards
Gloria di Proton,
UN ambassador of the Federation of Lucanian Shires.

I find it rather offensive that you jump to the 'ridiculous conclusion' that everyone who voted against the proposal can't read. Or that we make ridiculous conclusions ourselves.

I agree. Although I fully supported the proposal, it's silly to say that every one of those who voted against it did so out of ignorance.

"Member nations are required to uphold rights of using defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of government institutions and political leaders using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness"

And we are AGAINST

You really don't understand what the last section means at all. The wording of the resolution says that those specific acts are not protected by this specific resolution. It DID NOT say you were required to uphold the rights of individuals who committed those acts. Period. No other way to look at it. Individual nations are responsible for how those incidents are dealt with because those acts are not protected by this resolution.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again. We're beating a dead horse. The resolution failed because of gross misinterpretation, let's move on.

The people of HawaiianFreedom extend a thank you for Egy Nemzet delegate to The Genesis Federation's endorsement of our position on this resolution.

We in HawaiianFreedom are grateful it was defeated, even if by a narrow margin.

It is our sincerest hope that future resolutions that support the Freedom of Expression, don't restrict it in such a manner as to be deemed Freedom of Restriction, which would counteract the purpose of such a resolution in the first place.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation


With that, it's time for a drink.

(steps down from his podium and heads toward the bar)

You really don't understand what the last section means at all. The wording of the resolution says that those specific acts are not protected by this specific resolution.

Actually Zarqon, while beating the dead horse is inhumane and subject to harsh fines in SilentScope003, the resolution DOES allow defamation of politicans.

Member nations are required to uphold rights of free expression in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction.

For purposes of this resolution, free expression does NOT include:

Meaning that basically, what is below is not considerd "free expression". Anything else IS "free expression", and you MUST guarrante it. How? Nations must decide for themselves, but in the end, assuming they are Reasonable States, they will adhere to the spirit of the resolution...

- defamatory speech designed deliberately to impugn the character or reputation of individuals, groups or organizations (excepting government institutions and political leaders), using knowingly false information, or raising accusations with reckless disregard for their truthfulness;

Basically, you may legalize or criminalize all defamatory speech as you see fit EXCEPT that against government insitutions. Your right to defame the government is protected by the resolution, as it is considered 'free expression' for the purpose of this resolution.

OMGTKK put that in for a reason: So that people can speak out against the government without getting sued their pants off by politicans angry that people are speaking out against them. Politicans defame each other, people defame politicans, mudslinging occurs on a daily basis.

Allowing for 'defamation of political leaders' to be crimnalized allows for a big loophole that allows for the Government to declare anything said against the government to be 'a lie' and therefore arrest that person.

Basically, OMGTKK wanted to defend the common folk's right to criticize the government by preventing dubious lawsuits of libel from politicans wanting to supress the common folk's right to criticize. It is indeed as powerful as Lucanian Shires believe it to be, but unlike Lucanian Shires, I understand why OMGTKK did it.

---Dr. Bob

You really don't understand what the last section means at all. The wording of the resolution says that those specific acts are not protected by this specific resolution. It DID NOT say you were required to uphold the rights of individuals who committed those acts. Period. No other way to look at it.I hate to say it, but the Lucanian representative is correct. She's just being a dick about it. This act does not protect the rights of government leaders to accuse their citizens of "defaming" them. That way, citizens can say what they want about their government, within the exceptions granted for other forms of abusive speech, and not fear reprisal for their actions. We would not allow governments to use the defamation exception as some sort of all-purposes-granted loophole to accuse citizens of "defaming" them and thus stifle free expression against the political establishment.

The resolution failed because of gross misinterpretation, ...No arguments here. When even the Rubinans and the Hirotans are willing to endorse allowances for moderate restrictions on speech, you know something's out of joint with much of the vocal opposition heard here. Even the Gobbannaens, who opposed this, were able to read the text and not have cerebral hemorrhages over words like "obscene" and "national security."

If this resolution were passed would have given the right to a political leader who owns newspapers and TV the right to brainwashing voters with lies against his political opponents.Now this act is an endorsement of brainwashing? That's hilarious. Look, buddy, you already won, by 71 votes, so there's no further need for this brand of desperation and hysteria. It's awful damn hard to convince people to vote against an act that has already been defeated.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

It is our sincerest hope that future resolutions that support the Freedom of Expression, don't restrict it in such a manner as to be deemed Freedom of Restriction, which would counteract the purpose of such a resolution in the first place.Curious, those admirable sentiments don't at all square with your previously states objections to the motion:

In the common interests of Freedom of Expression, it is the duty of those who champion this ideal to allow those that have the wish to speak their mind, no matter how wise or how idiotic their method of expression, to do so. Yet, it is not for the members of the United Nations as a whole to decide something that should be up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. This resolution should never have made it to the table, as each nation is quite capable of allowing such freedoms to exist already.Either your government makes a habit of hiring schizophrenics as diplomats, or it was overthrown in the past 72 hours.

OOC: Can someone tell me of a forum where i could try and find a more... politically active region to move too? Because my current region is rather... apathetic. (sorry for the out of place question!)

Ask in Gameplay ... "Seeking politically active region ...". If you want NS UN activity, specify: it's kinda rare.

Or click on some regular posters' names and that will let you see their homepages, from which you can go to their regions' message boards, which will give you an idea of what their regions are like and how active their offsites are, if any.

The Blue Raja thinks we're done here.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1377/mmyk8.jpg

Blue Raja was mistaken, there's just a little more to be added.

Normally, I wouldn't do this, but it is food for thought for both sides of the conversation that led to this being locked in the first place. Mainly, it's a good idea to remember that the UN isn't a straight-up "1 nation, 1 vote" assembly. Delegates have votes equal to their endorsements. In the interest of showing the numbers behind the numbers, I offer the follow statistics:

Total Votes:
For: 3586
Against: 3657

Delegate Votes:
For: 1674
Against: 2557 (60%)

Member Votes:
For: 1912 (63%)
Against: 1100

Delegate Votes*:
For: 268 (60%)
Against: 211

Total Votes*:
For: 2088 (61%)
Against: 1311

* Delegate endorsements subtracted.