NationStates Jolt Archive

The young delegate from Azemica takes to the podium.

Lord Zarth Xiloscient of Azemica addresses the World Assembly, "Honourable delegates, I step up for my first time at the podium with a draft resolution for these fresh and new, but still hallowed, halls. I present to you The Freedom of Media.

The pages hand out the document.

Zarth implores, "Please consider this draft."

"Thank you," Lord Xiloscient steps down to applause from his fellow region delegates.


The Freedom of Media

The World Assembly,

Noting with deep concern that certain nations put limitations on what media its citizens can view,

Fully aware that these governments do so to push their own view of the world upon their citizens,

Alarmed by the amount of government propaganda twisting events in the world for the government’s uses,

Noting that some governments often air or publish their own programs or publications,

Further noting that these programs and publications are, for better or for worse, likely to be biased,

Recognizing that slyer governments often accomplish the aforementioned task by funding programs or publications and thereby gaining a say in the content of these programs or publications,

1. Prohibits any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from limiting the creation, distribution, publishing, airing, or viewing of any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films;

2. Forbids any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from creating, distributing, airing, publishing, subsidizing, or funding any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films.

Co-authored by the Kingdom of Droa

The Droan representative asks all to comment.

'All government is the assertion of something and the repression of something else'

The proletarian society of Andaras reserves the right to use it's media to show content to the interests of ruling working class and the Party as it's political vanguard, and to also use this media to repress the anti-social bourgeois and reactionary views of those justifiably liquidated by the socialist state.

Just as bourgeois dictatorship will repress the vast working majority for the interests of that minority, so will the worker dictatorship repress that expropriated minority.

Although political and governmental forms may vary, their is ONLY a capitalist or socialist society, nothing in between.

You do realise you're banning film classifications, don't you?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

You do realise you're banning film classifications, don't you?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

You are incorrect.

We are banning government film classifications, yes. But private agencies will do an even better job.

Ambassador Windcharmer reads over the following section and spits out his tea.


Forbids any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from creating, distributing, airing, publishing, subsidizing, or funding any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films.

This clause is unacceptable. There is nothing wrong with the government publishing material. How else are my state-run universities going to issue the latest breakthroughs in research? How are we supposed to issue announce the opening of our elections if we can't publish news bulletins? What about Public Television? How are any of our citizens expected to find the number to their senators if we can't create a Senate Website?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons why governments need the ability to publish and distribute information. In fact, my government is required to publish extensive reports on it's actives as part of our sunshine laws. Our people deserve to know what we're up to.

Also, I believe this proposal would bind a government's hands from preventing or punishing libel.

The Dominion

1. Prohibits any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from limiting the creation, distribution, publishing, airing, or viewing of any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films;

2. Forbids any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from creating, distributing, airing, publishing, subsidizing, or funding any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films.

So basically, the government can't stop people from accessing/viewing any sort of media AND they can't make their own stuff?
Subistratica will not support this resolution.

Good day.
-Eros Tatriel

In responce to the number of comments we have a note from the co-author Droa.

I just have one question.

If the second part

(2. Forbids any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from creating, distributing, airing, publishing, subsidizing, or funding any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films.)

was to mysteriously disappear would there still be a problem?


The real issue here is that some governments are trying to control the media. And stop it's citizens from seeing the outside world.

Yes. What about libel?

The Dominion

Well, we're half against, half in favour. We don't agree with legalising child pornography. We do agree the government should not subsidise child pornography.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Well, we're half against, half in favour. We don't agree with legalising child pornography. We do agree the government should subsidise child pornography.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

As I did not write this but created the proposal I can not be 100% sure about this but i don't think we said anything about child pornography?

OOC: My god, what a typo! Corrected.

IC: No, you didn't say anything about. That's my point. Censoring 'any form of media' would become illegal; this would clearly include a piece of child pornography. Hence, the prohibition of such would become illegal. The same would apply, as noted above, to defamatory speech, publication of classified information, and hate speech.

-- Samantha Benson

When browsing through this forum, the title of this draft had intrigued my interest; however, having looked at the present language of the proposal, I regret to say that I cannot support it at this time. Both of the operative clauses, quite frankly, would impose severe limitations on the ability of member states to exercise legitimate functions.

I echo the concerns of Ms. Benson regarding the first operative clause, and feel no need to be redundant. As for the second operative clause, it prevents governments from (amongst other things) publishing and disseminating commission reports and assessments, legislative records, and any other important documents that would be of immense value to the public. It is the official opinion of my country's Executive Council that an informed citizenry and an open government are essential components to any free and democratic society; but this proposal, if implemented, would force all member nations to choose between letting the private media have access to even the most sensitive information in the interests of government transparency, or keeping its people in the dark on all governmental affairs in the interest of national security. Neither is reasonable.

In short, the language of these operative clauses are too extreme. There is a danger in having governments dominate over the mass media, but this proposal creates several more problems than it would allegedly solve.

Erskine Chauncey
UN Representative, Cartographic Boxes

again i can't do much as i didn't write the proposal but i think that is somthing that needs to looked at.

Looks like the fools have already got at it to me.

Opposed.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Looks like the fools have already got at it to me.

Opposed.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I'm confused, to say the least...

Anything in English?

OOC: It makes more (sarcastic) sense if read straight after your last comment about making it more foolproof, which I really should have quoted. Sorry about that, I forget every now and then, and it always bites me somehow.

<snip>

CB, when the forums report that your post has been Moderated, don't post 2 more copies. You just have to wait for a mod to approve them.

(Workaround - go to the spam forum and make 10 posts. That gets you past the Jolt-imposed moderation queue.)

You are (in parts) completely correct; I completely overlooked that.

a) Firstly, I would argue that your state-run universities should be privatized, but that's another matter; secondly, your normal newspapers can report the research. But thanks for thinking of it.


But, our universities are not private. If this resolution would pass intact, the universities would not be able to publish magazines and academic journals. These things can't be privatized. Nobody wants to read a twenty page dissertation on the mating calls of dragons except for biologists in that particular field. This resolution is supposed to protect and enhance rights. However, I find it frustrating that it limits rights at the same time.

b) Again, private news can easily publish that elections are coming up.

Yes, they could and they usually do. However, my government is required to publish extensive lists of all election openings. Once the nominations are closed, we're required to publish every candidates name, polling places, and detailed instructions on how to vote. (Not, who to vote for, but how to vote). This resolution would prevent that. It is of vital importance to my government that we inform the people of our elections.


c) 'What about public television'?! What about it? The WHOLE POINT of this resolution is to ban it. To reiterate, public television can only do bad. Here is the logic: while public television CERTAINLY CAN BE completely unbiased and good, SO CAN NORMAL TELEVISION. However, government television CAN ALSO be used BY AN EVIL GOVERNMENT to PROPAGANDIZE, as in my resolution. (also, why should taxpayers pay for a channel when they might not even have TV, let alone watch the government news?)

There are several real world examples of public television that does do good. (PBS, BBC)

While I see your concern about an evil government trying to use state media to spread propaganda, the rights you protected in the first clause would make it pretty difficult to do. . Any art can be used for both good and evil, television is no different. However, just because public television can be used for evil, does not mean it is inherently evil.

Also, we feel that the choice of public television should be left to our public, not the World Assembly. Yes, I'm playing the NatSov card, but it's true.



In conclusion to your response, I (or one of you, if you'd like) ABSOLUTELY needs to put in a clause allowing that possibility of a government website. After all, that's really not what I was targeting, just a side effect. Thanks for your detailed response, Havensky.

I still don't agree with the idea that government can't distribute information. It's a critical part of communicating with our citizens and is a vital component to our commitment to open government. We love the first clause, hate the second.

OOC: It makes more (sarcastic) sense if read straight after your last comment about making it more foolproof, which I really should have quoted. Sorry about that, I forget every now and then, and it always bites me somehow.

I don't get it.

[OOC and strictly personal]

Havensky, I understand that you're trying to establish a given 'voice' here, but your use of Courier font, esp in that dark red, is so unpleasant to read that I don't bother reading it. I'd suggest that you find a more pleasant way to personalize, perhaps using the font and color only in your signature.

OCC: No biggie, I'll play around and see what I can come up with. I've revised my previous post.

[OOC]

Thanks Frisbeetaria. I thought something was glitching on my end of things. :-\

[IC]

Personally, I would be more interested in a proposal that enumerated specific prohibitions (i.e., on governmental censorship on news dissemination; on political, religious, or philosophical expression; on other subjects in the media of intellectual value; etc.) and specific exceptions to these prohibitions (i.e., policies regarding incedinary speech, obscenities, etc.), rather than in the blanket prohibition contained in the first operative clause of this draft. As for the second operative clause, I second the sentiments of Amb. Windcharmer.

Erskine Chauncey
UN Representative, Cartographic Boxes

But, our universities are not private. If this resolution would pass intact, the universities would not be able to publish magazines and academic journals. These things can't be privatized. Nobody wants to read a twenty page dissertation on the mating calls of dragons except for biologists in that particular field. This resolution is supposed to protect and enhance rights. However, I find it frustrating that it limits rights at the same time.

Are your governments actually a government office/agency/department? If they are just funded/oversawn/regulated by the government, then it doesn't apply. Also, remember that there are magazines such as Science and even more specialized journals that would be more than pleased to publish your dissertations.

Also, again unless the university is totally a government department, university presses and such can publish it.

Again also, :), in the event that this draft resolution auto-passed as an Act of God, lol, then what would happen, I assume, is that companies would incorporate to publish universities findings for them.


Yes, they could and they usually do. However, my government is required to publish extensive lists of all election openings. Once the nominations are closed, we're required to publish every candidates name, polling places, and detailed instructions on how to vote. (Not, who to vote for, but how to vote). This resolution would prevent that. It is of vital importance to my government that we inform the people of our elections.

I still don't agree with the idea that government can't distribute information. It's a critical part of communicating with our citizens and is a vital component to our commitment to open government. We love the first clause, hate the second.

Look, I'd have to guess that I'm even more for open government than you, and, as I said, am totally with you. Our government also makes a point of reporting all of its actions.

Again, I must, must, must write a clause allowing government websites.

--Lord Xiloscient of Azemica


P.S.
There are several real world examples of public television that does do good. (PBS, BBC)

While I see your concern about an evil government trying to use state media to spread propaganda, the rights you protected in the first clause would make it pretty difficult to do. . Any art can be used for both good and evil, television is no different. However, just because public television can be used for evil, does not mean it is inherently evil.

Again, I would have to agree with you on your politics and disagree with your logic.

I would argue that, for instance, PBS does not do good.

...it's not bad, certainly. The channel is great! However, it's nothing that PRIVATE television couldn't do the same way.

My point is that public television doesn't fill its own niche--only the one that private television also does.

However, public television CAN do bad, as you know. That's why we don't need it.

I can't think of any other solution for getting rid of the BAD public television and keeping the NEUTRAL short of making a WA committee to check (and censor, and limit) what they say.

Which defeats the purpose utterly.

Thanks, voters.

I think we'll propose Clause 1 soon.

Before we go, though, I'm still trying to defend Clause 2.

Anyone have responses to my last post?

There are several real world examples of public television that does do good. (PBS, BBC)

While I see your concern about an evil government trying to use state media to spread propaganda, the rights you protected in the first clause would make it pretty difficult to do. . Any art can be used for both good and evil, television is no different. However, just because public television can be used for evil, does not mean it is inherently evil.

Also, we feel that the choice of public television should be left to our public, not the World Assembly. Yes, I'm playing the NatSov card, but it's true.Private telivision can be just as bad, if not worse. Private telivision is out for the cash and as such panders in a way that actually promotes copycat syndrome and punishes independant ideas.

If fact, real life examples, if a show doesn't do well in the US within the first 2 episodes it has almost a guaranteed chance of biting the dust, even if it might later garner more support, unless a contract would say otherwise...which companies don't sign anymore.

Thus copycat syndrome emerges, just play it safe and don't do anything innovative, do stuff as cheaply as possible, etc.

Therefore the first clause is fine, but the second clause is not.

Private telivision can be just as bad, if not worse. Private telivision is out for the cash and as such panders in a way that actually promotes copycat syndrome and punishes independant ideas.

If fact, real life examples, if a show doesn't do well in the US within the first 2 episodes it has almost a guaranteed chance of biting the dust, even if it might later garner more support, unless a contract would say otherwise...which companies don't sign anymore.

Thus copycat syndrome emerges, just play it safe and don't do anything innovative, do stuff as cheaply as possible, etc.

Not really. The 'copycat syndrome because of possible failure' is by far canceled by the 'if my innovation does well I'll do well syndrome'.

The representative from TMZ looks over this proposal and nearly faints - a first for Captain Abigail Hardcastle -

"This is the most outrageous, ludricous proposal it has been my dismay to stumble over. You are doing your best to make governments opaque, not transparent as they should be. You are making it impossible for governments to function, or to inform their people of what they are doing - you are in fact creating the very thing you don't want."

I will not vote for this resolution.

Cartographic Boxes--

In regard to your post, which small bit and add it, remove it, or change it?

--Azemica

We still don't like Clause 2. We have an proposed revision.


2. Forbids any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from creating, distributing, airing, publishing, subsidizing, or funding any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films whose purpose is to sway or control public opinion. Government agencies are still permitted to publish factual information.

This way

1) Governments can still publish information.
2) Governments can't publish propaganda.

I would suggest separating the ban on public television to a separate resolution. We still feel that nations should make that call themselves. If the public doesn't want public television they can kill it. (If nobody donated to PBS, it wouldn't be here)

The representative from TMZ looks over this proposal and nearly faints - a first for Captain Abigail Hardcastle -

"This is the most outrageous, ludricous proposal it has been my dismay to stumble over. You are doing your best to make governments opaque, not transparent as they should be. You are making it impossible for governments to function, or to inform their people of what they are doing - you are in fact creating the very thing you don't want."

I will not vote for this resolution.

Thanks for your input, but we've covered this. Look at the soon-to-be new proposal.

Havensky--

Thank you so much. You have been our prime supporter--although you may not have seemed so, we measure support of this by the amount of constructive criticism.

Rewrite is in the works.

Secondly: we still will not change the ban on public television.

You say, "If no one donated to PBS, it wouldn't be here." This would apply IF PBS was completely funded by donations.

Nothing wrong with a donation-funded TV station.

Again, what's the difference (in quality) between a government-funded PBS and a private PBS?

Hello, this is Candi, the secretary! Mr. Chauncey, umm, went out to lunch, and he might not be back quickly, but, umm, he left a message regarding his position on, umm, this:

My vote in this informal poll is more of a reflection of the fact that my position does not fit neatly into the categories provided. I would like to see Clause II nixed. As for Clause I, I would prefer an enumeration of specific prohibitions of governmental intervention into the media (i.e., censorship on news dissemination; on the expression of political/religious/philosophical views; on other items of intellectual value, etc. etc.) and possible exceptions, as opposed to the current blanket-ban. I believe such a change would make this proposal more likely to pass as well.

Erskine Chauncey
UN Representative, Cartographic Boxes

OOC: Hi, moderators, is there a way to undelete my post that I deleted? It had all of my arguments for the first page on it, and I only deleted it because I seemed to have double posted before.

A private station exists to make money. A public station exists for the public good.

In terms of quality, National Public Radio (NPR) is one of the best stations for non-biased political coverage of various campaigns. I was able to listen to a whole stump speech in it's entirety, not just the sound bite. Let's compare "The News Hour" with an hour of Fox News. The News Hour is dry, it isn't exciting, it doesn't "sell" well, it's tremendously unsexy. However, The News Hour is one of the best places for in-depth coverage of hard news.

Let each nation decide for itself if it wants public television. The World Assembly should not ban it simply out of the belief it's better to privatize everything. There are many governments that are suspicious of private industry. Let's not have the WA tell them that private industry is better. Let's let them make that choice for themselves. For us, not only do we value the idea of public television, but we value the idea of nations should decide what's best for themselves.

You have not answered the NatSov concern. What gives the WA the right to decide that we can't make up our mind for ourselves? It's not like we're arguing about an inalienable right, we're debating a policy. A policy that should be set by nations....not the WA

Lord Xiloscient takes the podium.

"Delegates, friends, in response to the much constructive criticism we have significantly changed our proposal," he says. "We have made slight edits to the preambulatory clauses, small edits for completeness in each operative clause, edits in the form of a quick exception in clause one, and substantial edits to clause two."

"I present to you Draft Resolution 1.2, The Freedom of Media. (edits underlined)."


The Freedom of Media

The World Assembly,

Noting with deep concern that certain nations put extensive limitations on what media its citizens can view,

Fully aware that these governments do so to push their own view of the world upon their citizens,

Alarmed by the amount of government propaganda twisting events in the world for the government’s uses,

Noting that some governments often air or publish their own programs or publications,

Further noting that these programs and publications are, for better or for worse, likely to be biased,

Recognizing that slyer governments often accomplish the aforementioned task by funding programs or publications and thereby gaining a say in the content of these programs or publications,

Further recognizing that governments do have a need to publish some facts and reports about their actions from time to time,

1. Prohibits any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from limiting the creation, distribution, publishing, airing, or viewing of any form of media or publication; by whatever method or in whatever way or form set out or stored, whether in print, electronically, or digitally; including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, films, or by any technology that may in future be invented, developed or used, or by any other method or in any other way or form whatsoever; except where the said media or publication conflicts with other applicable laws protecting human rights;

2. Forbids any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from creating, distributing, airing, publishing, subsidizing, or funding any form of media or publication, including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs or DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, or films whose purpose is to sway or control public opinion;

3. [U]Allows governments, governmental agencies, governmental organizations, and international governmental organizations; notwithstanding the previous clause; to publish or distribute factual information about the government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization of pertinence to its citizens or members only;

4. Condones the practice of; notwithstanding any of the previous clauses; in periods of natural disaster, terrorist attack, or war, governments, governmental agencies, governmental organizations, and international governmental organizations publishing or distributing information of pertinence to its citizens and members about the natural disaster, terrorist attack, or war to the citizens or members.



"Any questions, grammar fixes, comments, or last-minute fixes?" Zarth inquires?

OK.
I say bring to two clauses together. I was hoping this prop would stop nations spreading propaganda about the outside world. Everone on this eirth diserves to know about it what surounds them.

It's not about stoping the BBC, CBC, or PBS ect. This is a chance to change the world.

Please comment.

And i know you will

Windcharmer breaths a sign of relief

Much better...

Our concerns have been resolved and you have our support. However, one of the other ambassadors was concerned about the issue of libel. Because you said 'can not limit' versus 'can not regulate', we believe that you could still prosecute for libel.

While this is not what I had envisioned, I find this version much more palatable. Clause I, while definately an improvement over the original, might still be a little problematic. For instance, copyright laws have the effect of limiting the distribution of media, etc. etc.; as I do not believe copyright laws could be considered a matter of human rights by any stretch of the imagination, this proposal would bar governments from enforcing copyright laws.

But the direction this proposal is heading does appear promising.

Erskine Chauncey [credential omitted]

PS: I'm having an anal-retentive grammar moment. Throw a comma after "films" in Clause II, or better yet, throw "including but not limited to . . . new bulletins, and films" into paratheses. Otherwise a centaur might come along and interpret it to mean that governments are forbidden from creating, distributing, etc. etc., several forms of media, in which most are completely off-limits whereas films are only prevented if their purpose is to sway public opinion.

Libel:

Read this clause: except where the said media or publication conflicts with other applicable laws protecting human rights;

Copyright: except where the said media or publication conflicts with other applicable laws protecting human rights (insert: or copyrights);

OK EVERYBODY! I'm going to submit the proposal later today or tomorrow... IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT ADDED?

I don't think much more argument is in order... but if you have an idea that you think was meant but not thought of and therefore omitted, i.e. copyrights, please post quickly!

What is your proposed Category and Effect?

Note that you can't just pick one - it needs to make sense with the description line. Wrong Category is the most common reason for proposal deletions (and WA warnings).

What is your proposed Category and Effect?

Note that you can't just pick one - it needs to make sense with the description line. Wrong Category is the most common reason for proposal deletions (and WA warnings).

What category and effect would you guys propose that I propose.

Not really. The 'copycat syndrome because of possible failure' is by far canceled by the 'if my innovation does well I'll do well syndrome'.
Not when you tell someone they have to pay for your idea.

Windcharmer breaths a sign of relief

Much better...

Our concerns have been resolved and you have our support. However, one of the other ambassadors was concerned about the issue of libel. Because you said 'can not limit' versus 'can not regulate', we believe that you could still prosecute for libel.

Thanks!

BTW, I'm going to take out this clause ( whose purpose is to sway or control public opinion;) because its purpose is redundant now that we have clauses 3&4.

Again, what's the difference (in quality) between a government-funded PBS and a private PBS?
Private funded ones will put commericals and only put stuff that is "popular" not really "informative"...and it'll be less of it because of commercials.

Not when you tell someone they have to pay for your idea.

? You have to pay for everything....


Oh yes, and I forgot this. GOVERNMENT SHOWS ARE THE BORING AND NONINNOVATIVE ONES! Why? They have no competition! The shows could put on utter crap and still be OK... but private shows HAVE to do well to compete!

I would imagine this would fall under "The Furtherment of Democracy" as we're dealing with the freedom of the press.

(and freedom of the press would be significant methinks)

? You have to pay for everything....


Oh yes, and I forgot this. GOVERNMENT SHOWS ARE THE BORING AND NONINNOVATIVE ONES! Why? They have no competition! The shows could put on utter crap and still be OK... but private shows HAVE to do well to compete!
Private ones are all those clones of last year...if you watch one...

And almost all of them are uninformative and filled with commercials to interrupt the viewing pleasure. Private ones don't care about information...they care about entertainment because that gives them $$$$$$$$. Even the news is now a lot of fluff and not really news...it's infotainment...

Remember: a ban to government-sponsored programs is saying yes to lower-quality programing and more commericals that you, the representative, will be bombared with.

Oh, look, Mr. Chauncey left another memo on my desk! How could I have missed it? Candi, you really are such a terrible secretary...and now you're talking about yourself in the 3rd person...this is a little pathetic.... *ze sigh*

The little addition of copyrights to Clause I seems sufficient. I hope this proposal fares well, although, as a sidenote, I would prefer to see the "sway public opinion" phrase survive.

Erskine Chauncey
WA blahblahblah

Private ones are all those clones of last year...if you watch one...

And almost all of them are uninformative and filled with commercials to interrupt the viewing pleasure. Private ones don't care about information...they care about entertainment because that gives them $$$$$$$$. Even the news is now a lot of fluff and not really news...it's infotainment...

Remember: a ban to government-sponsored programs is saying yes to lower-quality programing and more commericals that you, the representative, will be bombared with.

Ahhh! Stop it, seriously! The government is NOT A MYSTICAL MAGICAL BUNCH OF DETACHED BEINGS... they're US!!!

What gives the private television MONEY is what people WANT. Therefore, if you don't like what's on TV, rest assured most do!

You say that companies are looking for money. You're correct.

But, THE UNDERLYING MOTIVATOR OF MOST THINGS IN THIS WORLD IS MONEY, WEALTH, AND SUCCESS. (not the root motive, but the underlying)

THAT'S NOT A BAD THING. The WAY THAT COMPANIES make money is by...


MAKING ITS CUSTOMERS HAPPY. They don't have a magical agenda that they follow.

Oh, look, Mr. Chauncey left another memo on my desk! How could I have missed it? Candi, you really are such a terrible secretary...and now you're talking about yourself in the 3rd person...this is a little pathetic.... *ze sigh*

Unfortunately, that clause leaves the problem of who's to decide what's swaying and controlling public opinion...

It would probably be alright, but it's a bit of a loophole.

What category and effect would you guys propose that I propose.

That's not how this works. You're the legislators, it's your call. We just judge it.

As we've repeatedly stated over the years, you must write the proposal to the category, not the other way around. Pick one, and make it work. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

I would imagine this would fall under "The Furtherment of Democracy" as we're dealing with the freedom of the press.

(and freedom of the press would be significant methinks)

You realize there's a Free Press subcategory under Education and Creativity? You'd just have to have some justification of why it's ...
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Frankly, I'm not seeing this work as either Free Press or Furtherment of Democracy. In fact, I don't see a category that this works under ... as it specifically limits press freedoms for certain parts of the nation.

This is a pro-censorship proposal. The fact that it censors the government and not the citizens isn't relevant to the fact that it reduces freedoms.

That's not how this works. You're the legislators, it's your call. We just judge it.

As we've repeatedly stated over the years, you must write the proposal to the category, not the other way around. Pick one, and make it work. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.



You realize there's a Free Press subcategory under Education and Creativity? You'd just have to have some justification of why it's ...


Frankly, I'm not seeing this work as either Free Press or Furtherment of Democracy. In fact, I don't see a category that this works under ... as it specifically limits press freedoms for certain parts of the nation.

This is a pro-censorship proposal. The fact that it censors the government and not the citizens isn't relevant to the fact that it reduces freedoms.

I thought (and think) that there was a category to fit everything... an international body passes laws related to events and problems, not specific guidelines for material...

Do you really think that there's no category for it? There should be a category for increasing the freedom of the people by limiting the government's power.

It seems either like Free Press or the Furtherment of Democracy to me.

Opps, I only looked at the first part of the Rules thread.

But, from looking at this.... as long as we have the 2nd Clause in there (that stops the government from publishing opinion) then there isn't any way we can plug this into a catagory.

And we'd have trouble placing even just clause one under "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts."

(Just wondering....why is Free Press under education and the arts?)

(lol, the poll)

After looking at the classification guide, it kind of looks like a Human Rights resolution.

Unfortunately, that clause leaves the problem of who's to decide what's swaying and controlling public opinion...

As distinct from the proposal, which makes it clear that the owners of the media companies get to control public opinion. This is still one of the most wrong-headed proposals I've ever seen, right to the roots. You clearly don't trust the government to be impartial. I don't trust anything that isn't the government to be impartial. You're never going to get past that one.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Without the "sway public opinion" clause, governments would be barred from making even basic PSA announcements about subjects other than the government itself.... *chuckles* PSA announcements? How silly of me; I speak redundantly.

At any rate, perhaps there exists a fine line between "facts" and "opinions", "truths" and "values", but I don't believe we should nix the clause because someone could decide to go relativist on us and cry "Wolf!" every time the government publishes factual information that might have the effect of persuading public opinion.

Consider, for instance, a governmentally-funded public awareness campaign on AIDS. Of course you will have your AIDS dissidents who claim that AIDS is a made-up syndrome that scares people into buying expensive drugs from BigPharma, and that such a public awareness campaign would amount to the government swaying public opinion; should the government be barred from launching such a campaign simply because a vocal minority suspects bias and a hidden agenda? I, for one, do not think so.

Neither do I believe that the "sway public opinion" phrase creates a loophole, per se. While it certainly does not settle what constitutes "swaying public opinion", I would actually look forward to seeing the matter being deliberated amongst the citizens that keep their governments in check; there is, after all, as much value to be found in the discourse as there is in the solution itself. With the phrase omitted, however, the proposal once again impose severe restrictions on the government that not many nations would want in place.

As for the classification purposes of this proposal, I have no comment at this time.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Delegate, Cartographic Boxes

As distinct from the proposal, which makes it clear that the owners of the media companies get to control public opinion. This is still one of the most wrong-headed proposals I've ever seen, right to the roots. You clearly don't trust the government to be impartial. I don't trust anything that isn't the government to be impartial. You're never going to get past that one.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

then we have an ideological difference. No more debate needed.

1. Prohibits any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from limiting the creation, distribution, publishing, airing, or viewing of any form of media or publication...except where the said media or publication conflicts with other applicable laws protecting human rights;
I should hope that these "human rights" mean protection from libel.

2. Forbids ...whose purpose is to sway or control public opinion;
This could get very gray. You can say that by releasing certain pieces of information at certain times, the government may be attempting to affect public opinion, or you could argue the reverse. Where is the line? What if, for example, a government publishes a scientific finding that some phenomenon (take global warming) is happening--or not. Would this be attempting to sway public opinion?

Overall, the Dominion is in support of this proposal and this document shall see an affirmative vote from us.


The Dominion

After looking at the classification guide, it kind of looks like a Human Rights resolution.

There is a tendency in this game to say "I want it, therefore it must be a Human Right that I have it". It's the most abused category in the game.

Proposals that exclusively limit rights (even government rights) cannot be considered "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights."

Amusingly enough, this would prohibit a national hospital from allowing a foreign doctor from seeing a patient's records. Better hope they have no allergies, and maybe we can 'lucky guess' their blood type. I also fail to see how a government cannot try to sway public opinion, yet can be expected to provide information in an emergency: 'you need to get out of your house and into a shelter' seems pretty swaying to me.

We haven't been following the discussion too closely as we find the dull, blindly anti-government screamings of self-proclaimed libertarians vomit-inducing, but from what we can see in the proposal text, there's little here for us to support. We only hope the proposal author will understand that there are still far too many legitimate exercises of power prohibited by their 2nd clause.

-- Samantha Benson

There is a tendency in this game to say "I want it, therefore it must be a Human Right that I have it". It's the most abused category in the game.

Proposals that exclusively limit rights (even government rights) cannot be considered "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights."

So, if he dropped the 2nd clause only only had the first clause (which is designed to guarantee freedom of the press rather than limit government control of the press), then we'd be OK right?

(And after reading the comments of Ms. Benson, we'd have to agree regarding the emergency notification stuff)

THAT'S NOT A BAD THING. The WAY THAT COMPANIES make money is by...


MAKING ITS CUSTOMERS HAPPY. They don't have a magical agenda that they follow.Only if they get enough people. If not, you might be willing to fork over money, but they won't put content up for you, even if you beg, even if you'd commit suicide because you're depressed because you can't watch what you want.

[OOC:To be frank...IRL I haven't seen any TV network put on what I want...and these are all private networks...clearly I'm not happy IRL and I'm a person just like you.]

So, if he dropped the 2nd clause only only had the first clause (which is designed to guarantee freedom of the press rather than limit government control of the press), then we'd be OK right?

(And after reading the comments of Ms. Benson, we'd have to agree regarding the emergency notification stuff)
Hey that's what I've been asking for this entire time....just strip out clause 2.

[Although it seems to me justice to leave this quote here, I'll remove it to be nice.]

In debating, which you like, it is unacceptable and a sign of weakness to make personal attacks as opposed to attacks on stance.

I would suggest that you not resort to such. [Personal attack in retaliation removed.]

Bad debating habits aside:

Getting back to the point there is no way that he will willingly give up the second clause.

Getting back to the point, there is no way that you will willingly stop reiterating this point.

I don't mind giving the clause up if that's the only way to pass the draft; in this case, half is better than none at all.

I don't want to give up the clause because it is the other half of the problem. To reiterate, totalitarian or communist countries often deceive their citizens with blatant lies and get away with the propaganda because the citizens believe the media. We can't let them do that!

I completely understand your point of view, Quintessence of Dust. I also agree that some legitimate functions are blocked by this resolution. That is unacceptable. Although I'd argue that governments shouldn't run schools or universities, indeed that they should not exist, that is a matter for another time and will likely never pass. Therefore, I'd prefer to except the functions instead of deleting the clauses.

I propose this:

'... [and also excepting] governments [...] from publishing facts needed to be published for various other departments that the government may oversee or run.'

That's a fairly good blanket statement, allowing university newsletters and hospital records. If anyone has a better wording, inform me of it.

Thanks.

Lord Xiloscient,
WA Delegate of Azemica

Only if they get enough people. If not, you might be willing to fork over money, but they won't put content up for you, even if you beg, even if you'd commit suicide because you're depressed because you can't watch what you want.

[OOC:To be frank...IRL I haven't seen any TV network put on what I want...and these are all private networks...clearly I'm not happy IRL and I'm a person just like you.]

If you want one show to be on, and the other 6 billion plus people want another, you're proposing that the smart thing to do would be to put on yours?

The problem is the category issue. If it JUST guaranteed Freedom of the Press, then it could go under "Free Press"

However, if it limits the rights of the government than it's without a category.

My post has been removed as on second thought it was rude. Sorry.

The problem is the category issue. If it JUST guaranteed Freedom of the Press, then it could go under "Free Press"

However, if it limits the rights of the government than it's without a category.

And that is what I don't understand.

Why do we have categories? It seems to me that categories should conform to resolutions, not the other way around.

The WA passes resolutions dealing with every aspect of... well... everything! A proposal being tossed because it's in the wrong category, I understand: a proposal tossed because no category fits it? What?!

Why do we have categories? It seems to me that categories should conform to resolutions, not the other way around.

The WA passes resolutions dealing with every aspect of... well... everything! A proposal being tossed because it's in the wrong category, I understand: a proposal tossed because no category fits it? What?!

OOC: My understanding is that the whole "category" issue is more of a practical matter than a normative one. Proposals belonging to a certain category have a particular effect on member nations' game statistics; and, so that these stat changes correspond with the proposal, the proposal must correspond with the category to which it belongs.

IRL, we wouldn't need to quibble so much over the categorization of bills. But game code has its limitations, and it's because of those limitations that make categories matter more here.

I haven't been following this thread as much now as before, so I have no comment at this time regarding the proposal.

And that is what I don't understand.

Why do we have categories? It seems to me that categories should conform to resolutions, not the other way around.

The WA passes resolutions dealing with every aspect of... well... everything! A proposal being tossed because it's in the wrong category, I understand: a proposal tossed because no category fits it? What?!

Well, there's been a lot of good discussion on this and I do think there is significant amount of support for a free press.

If you don't want to give up the 2nd clause, would you mind another nation like myself taking the free press issue and making a separate proposal for it?

Well, there's been a lot of good discussion on this and I do think there is significant amount of support for a free press.

If you don't want to give up the 2nd clause, would you mind another nation like myself taking the free press issue and making a separate proposal for it?

I now understand why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clauses don't work with the first. In future, I think the ideal system would be one where you could mix together your own categories (i.e. instead of Human Rights or Free Press, +economy -political freedom +population, etc...) but I understand the current limitation. I will be submitting the first clause.

I will later perhaps be submitting the rest in a separate draft.

Thank you all for your support.

The World Assembly floor is quiet, after a period of much debate and then recess to informal caucus. The floor has just reopened for debate.

"Are there any points or motions on the floor?"

Lord Zarth Xiloscient of Azemica stands, while keying in the <MOTION> button on his console. Amidst scattered applause, he announces, "I motion to introduce Proposal 2.1, The Freedom of Media. After much debate, I have submitted the first half!"

"All in favour?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Many of you will already know of my proposal," the Regional Delegate of Andar says, "from the much debate we have had about the draft. As we finally decided that the proposal was too broad to have a category, I have submitted the first half."

He elaborates, "Although I'm sure that even you who know the proposal will want to see it in its current form!"

"Without further ado, I present..."

The Freedom of Media

A resolution of the free press.

Category: Education and Creativity Effect: Free Press | Proposed by: Incorporated States of Azemica

The World Assembly,

NOTING WITH DEEP CONCERN that certain nations put extensive limitations on what media its citizens can view,

FULLY AWARE that these governments do so to push their own view of the world upon their citizens,

ALARMED by the amount of government propaganda twisting events in the world for the government’s uses,

1. PROHIBITS any government, governmental agency, governmental organization, or international governmental organization from limiting the creation, distribution, publishing, airing, or viewing of any form of media or publication; by whatever method or in whatever way or form set out or stored, whether in print, electronically, or digitally; including but not limited to television programs, internet websites, musical compact discs, DVDs, books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, news bulletins, films, or by any technology that may in future be invented, developed or used, or by any other method or in any other way or form whatsoever; except where the said media or publication conflicts with other applicable laws protecting human rights or copyrights.


"Thank you, thank you." Zarth bows. "For those who don't want to read the whole operative clause, here's the whole thing in a nutshell: The World Assembly prohibits governments from limiting the distribution of media in any way except where the media is in violation of human rights or copyright laws."

"Delegates, the first step is to please approve the proposal, so it can reach quorum. Please do so."

"Thank you"

((OOC: The current link to the proposal is: http://www.nationstates.net/59709/page=UN_proposal/start=25
Note that this could change quickly, as it moves up the list.))

GO TO: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553866

I can't accept this because it does not protect certain things:

Right of a government to reasonably restrict material for national security reasons, such as it's defense capabilities in case of an attack.
Restict things such as violent images from times of showing on TV when children are watching (not that Popotan does this, but we feel others should be able to). This would not be covered by human rights because it's a restriction.
Banning things such as pornographic images and such, except where they violate a human right (which would be very narrow...stuff like a rape scene could be banned, but a banner with a nude woman who was flashing wouldn't). Again this wouldn't fall under human rights.
Could not pass ordinaces banning advertising that might kind of float in the sky and block your view...or the ocean, etc, even if that's what the people of the nation wanted.
There a re a few more of course, but this law is just too broad, but well intentioned though. Remember this affects things down to the local level.

Would you want someone putting up an advertisement on your house for condoms? It doesn't violate copyright or human right, so it's perfectly legit under here and you couldn't petition your government to stop it, because it would be ilegal for them to restict it.

Ah, but isn't it a law in your country people have a right to manage their property? It's a human right to not allow people to stick advertisements ON YOUR PROPERTY... you have a right to your property.

Please don't open up new threads for proposals already under discussion.

Threads merged, new poll preserved. You might want to edit the newest version into the original post.

I hate to add things after it's already been proposed, but a few thing were pointed out to me by other ambassadors.

The resolution would not allow for the prosecution of libel, defamation, and for those publishing state secrets.

If possible, we'd like to see these issues addressed.

Ah, but isn't it a law in your country people have a right to manage their property? It's a human right to not allow people to stick advertisements ON YOUR PROPERTY... you have a right to your property.Well in my country there is no advertisement allowed except word of mouth and a small sign outside ones shop, regulated in maximum size (with slight allowances made for long names, as long as we don't feel it's being abusive) and coloring. A company may have a catalog listing the item on it, without a picture or any reviews, except where the product was verified as faulty.

In this way we remove the bias of advertisement compelling people to buy or do something unless it is truly worth doing or buying. Packing on items we import is covered or reboxed.

Well, we're glad the former Article 2 has been dropped, but we still can't support this. Incidentally, we'd like to remind the delegate of Azemica that while our nation has a free market, there are many WA nations that do not; and furthermore, that it is illegal for the WA to prohibit political organization on such grounds. There will always be communist states in the WA, whether we like it or not.

Anyway, we think it's going to be excessively tiresome to define every last exigency in terms of human rights, particularly when it comes to something such as safety warnings or information labels. I'm not sure there is a human right to know whether an object is radioactive or not, but there should certainly be a government regulation requiring such to be labelled correctly.

If it fails to make quorum, perhaps start by toning down the rhetoric. You have about five 'in any way' or 'whatsoever' phrases. Certainly, we'd like to see the WA protect free speech, but you might think more carefully about under what circumstances it could legitimately be limited, rather than bundling it into a rather nebulous final clause. For example, presumably you admit the right of national governments to classify certain intelligence documents, and then to prohibit the revelation of their contents?

-- Samantha Benson