NationStates Jolt Archive

I am thinking about writing a resolution that will ban the WA and any member nation from interfering the right of journalists and broadcasters to free speech

The resolution should be called "Freedom from Censorship" The category should be Education and Creativity and area of effect is Free press.

The basic structure of this resolution will be as follows:

- Basically, the WA and member nations are not allowed to dictate what broadcasters, journalists of any media organization, or anyone are allowed to report or broadcast.

OOC, this means that acts such as banning reporters from Zimbabwe and banning programmes made by the Falun Gong is not allowed.

- Censorship controls such as internet filtering or other restrictions may only be used as protection of minors from inappropriate content or on grounds of moral decency. It may not be used to restrict freedom of speech.

OOC, banning violent films on TV from 4am until 9pm would be allowed as well as banning minors from viewing sites deemed inappropriate, but banning programmes made by the Falun Gong isn't.

- Also, I think network service providers should not be allowed to interfere with the provision of services to their taste. One example OOC would be the opposite of 'net neutrality'. Maybe a good keyword fro this resolution could be 'free and equal access to all forms of communications'.

This is a very loose draft at very early days.

What about commercial speech?

Will businesses enjoy the right to advertise freely in all WA nations?

The problem with a "moral decency" objection is that one could conceivably ban anything as being "indecent". Violent program? Morally indecent. Sex? Morally indecent. Covering those protesters who may have used a dirty word? Morally indecent. And so it goes. The same can be said for using children as a shield against programming that the government finds distasteful.

I don't know of a good workaround for this except to say that either one goes full tilt in favor of civil rights, and makes no exemptions, or that one makes a "suggestion" proposal that doesn't force a government to do anything in particular.

There should be an exception for times of war, and concerning sensitive information in general

- Basically, the WA and member nations are not allowed to dictate what broadcasters, journalists of any media organization, or anyone are allowed to report or broadcast.
Two words: 'slander' and 'libel'.

- Censorship controls such as internet filtering or other restrictions may only be used as protection of minors from inappropriate content or on grounds of moral decency. It may not be used to restrict freedom of speech.
This is self-contradictory. "Protection of minors" (definition of minors?) and "grounds of moral decency" (whose morals?) are by definition restricting freedom of speech.

- Also, I think network service providers should not be allowed to interfere with the provision of services to their taste.
If you can define this in terms that make any sense at all, I'll be quite impressed.

I dislike the formal focus. Journalists and broadcasters are often able to argue for relaxation of press restrictions anyway, because they can join professional unions or commercial organizations, and because even controversial journalists can become part of 'the Establishment'. So while their rights should be protected, it's important to also include people in the informal sector. For example, a big concern at the moment is the suppression of bloggers' rights online. Another example would be fiction writers: poets, novelists and playwrights. Because they almost always write alone, they are far less able to campaign on their own behalf than journalists, who often write collaboratively.

As I type this message, I notice Solzhenitzyn has died.

OOC: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a daily issue about censorship? Also, isn't banning censorship like banning a political ideology?

OOC: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a daily issue about censorship? Also, isn't banning censorship like banning a political ideology?

Irrelevant, and no.

The only reason ideology is on the list is to prevent game mechanics events. "Psychotic Dictatorships" and "New York Times Democracies" can't exist without the ideologies of dictatorship and democracy, so banning them would make a sizable portion of the population out of compliance with passed law. Instead of that, we just outlaw the law.

Issues and WA resolutions are permitted to conflict with each other. To demand otherwise would be too limiting.

I say we should, free speech to all people, but as far as the rest, its bull, and I shall never let businesses have free speech in my country, Speech for the people, Not the Capitalist pig-dogs

I was thinking about breaking this draft into two resolutions, on covering net neutrality whereas providers can't bias their services for example, to boost their profits. The other one would cover the government, where they are not allowed to control any forms of media. They all come under 'Freedom from Censorship'.

Let's focus on net neutrality first. The draft basics first:

The World Assembly,

Understanding that one of its roles is to promote freedom of speech;

Concerned that Network service providers may compromise the freedom of speech by implementing restrictions on how end-users can connect or communicate;

Defines a Provider as an organization or that provides for end-users services to networking or telecommunication;

Defines an End-user as a client or individual who uses the services of a Provider;

Defines Network Neutrality as a principle whereas:
- A network is free of restrictions based on what equipment may be attached, what modes of communication are allowed and what content, services or platforms may be used, and;
- No communication is unreasonably hampered by other communication streams.

Mandates that all Network Service Providers and organizations must abide by the principle of Network Neutrality as well as allowing democratic and equal access to all forms of communications.

Emphasizes that Network Service Providers and organizations may provide censorship controls to end-users but must not be enabled or deployed against the end-users will or for the Provider's benefit.

Allows individuals to take any action against Network Service Providers and organizations over any content that they deem inappropriate to their taste.

Understanding that one of its roles is to promote freedom of speech;

No it's not. The WA's role is to make the world a better place, and for some people that may be the banning of everything even slightly questionable in their eyes.



Allows individuals to take any action against Network Service Providers and organizations over any content that they deem inappropriate to their taste.

Well that seems a bit awkward. NSP's can have action taken against them due to content that they aren't allowed to censor, and are not responsible for? And, action could be taken against anything and claimed to be ''inappropriate'' in the eyes of the action-taker. ''inappropriate to their taste'' should be changed to ''illegal in the country of residence of the one responsible'' or similar.

Also, ''action'' needs to be ''legal action'', because ''action'' may also include drive-by shootings and the vandalisation of private property.

But, we would support the rest of the bill.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
9th of August, 14:48

I may be a new guy, but I find this resolution appalling. I've personally been trying to increase my political freedoms, but this impedes on the sovereignty of all nations.

Second, you impose what times we can censor anything. So you're saying we can't outright ban something, we can only keep it from airing at certain times!?

Thirdly, this 'moral decency' rule could be twisted very easily. Speaking out against one's country can be seen as morally indecent or taboo. Regardless, if this law is to pass, that doesn't mean we can't censor via making it taboo or heavily taxing it out.

this impedes on the sovereignty of all nations.

Everything the WA does "impedes the sovereignty of all nations". Even blocker legislation blocks the ability of those who wish to impose their morals on other nations, which they may see as their sovereign right.

It's what you signed up for. It's what you're gonna get.

I might have done a typo: it should have read "The all come under 'Freedom from Censorship'".

Im new as well. I say that this is a bit confusing. You want to grant freedom of Speech but are willing to restrict certain parts of that? And if you have lots of civil rights then won't censorship just be impeding upon those same civil rights for which you want your people to have? Even if it just a bit like censoring sex over the internet, that still is impeding upon civil rights. You shouldn't censor and just let others make their decisions and let parents do what they want to do about their kids.

I dislike this proposal a bit but if it comes to pass in a vote then I will ask my region their opinions and represent them even if they wish to vote for this.

Thats my two cents anyway

- No communication is unreasonably hampered by other communication streams.

OOC: wearing my techie hat, what do you mean by "unreasonably" here? All communication streams use up bandwidth that could be used by other streams, so inherently hamper each other.

Emphasizes that Network Service Providers and organizations may provide censorship controls to end-users but must not be enabled or deployed against the end-users will or for the Provider's benefit.
IC: This needs rewording. At the moment, it's as clear as mud.

The senior Consul of The Most Serene Republic of Willagee,

Would like to on behalf of the people of The Most Serene Republic of Willagee, extend its full approval of this resolution. Indeed any resolution which prevents any person/organisation private or government preventing the free flow of information so essentially to the function of a true democracy.