NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: RED text has been struck and is left for reference purposes only.

The People's Republic of Nimtiam is looking for feedback on a possible proposal to the World Assembly.

Category: HUMAN RIGHTS
Strength: SIGNIFICANT

The World Assembly,

NOTING that there is no international guarantee of free expression,

ASSERTING that freedom of expression is a basic human right, and

RECOGNIZING that there are legitimate reasons for limitations on this right,

DEFINES "expression" as any act, included but not limited to speech, writing, and clothing, which serves to express a person's emotions, thoughts, or ideas to others,

DEFINES "speaker" as a person responsible for expression,

DEFINES "malicious expression" as any expression which a) the speaker knows to be false, b) the speaker intends or could reasonably expect the audience to think is true, and c) is used to harm another party in any way,

DEFINES "criminal conspiracy" as the meeting of minds between multiple persons to commit a crime as defined by the laws of the nation in which the crime occurs,

DEFINES an "optional government event" as any government event which will not cause economic, political, or social harm to people who do not attend, and

HEREBY ORDERS that all member nations enact necessary legislation to ensure that:

No law is passed to restrict the right of any person to employ expression however they wish, unless such expression conflicts with another person's right to expression,
No agent of the government acts in a way which explicitly or implicitly restricts the expression of any person unless such expression conflicts with another person's right to expression, and
Governmental agents do everything in their power to create opportunities for expression as long as it does not interfere with clauses 1 or 2.


ALLOWS member nations to enact legislation to apply the following exceptions to the above rules:

Exceptions regarding a basic level of decency in clothing,
Exceptions regarding clothing for persons legally imprisoned,
Exceptions regarding orderly running of a confinement facility,
Exceptions allowing for the practical requirements of a profession,
Exceptions regarding dress code at optional government events,
Exceptions allowing for the requirement of certain dress codes in the armed forces,
Exceptions allowing for the explicit or implicit requirement of confidentiality before receiving certain information,
Exceptions regulating public disturbance as long as there are provisions to create a legal place for that expression,
Exceptions banning malicious expression,
Exceptions dealing with expression as part of a criminal conspiracy, and
Exceptions which could limit expression but apply to all expression regardless of its content.

The World Assembly also

URGES all member nations to provide for freedom of speech above and beyond the measures set forth in this proposal.


NOTE: Exception 2 is struck and will not be proposed as it is unnecessary (it falls under Exception 3). It has not been removed so as to not destroy the numbering for purposes of debate.
Exception 6 has been struck for the same reason (it falls under Exception 4)

The People's Republic of Nimtiam is looking for feedback on a possible proposal to the World Assembly.

Happy to help.

The World Assembly,

NOTING that there is no international guarantee of free expression,

I stopped and checked, and so far it looks like you're right. Unless I forgot some obscure passage in one resolution.

ASSERTING that freedom of expression is a basic human right, and

RECOGNIZING that there are legitimate reasons for limitations on this right,

DEFINES expression as any act, included but not limited to speech, writing, and clothing, which serves to express a person's emotions, thoughts, or ideas to others, and

I can tell you right now that including clothing in this is going to cause some opposition. The lack of clothing itself can be considered expressing oneself, and certain societies ban the lack of clothing in public due to a variety of reasons.

Another item is that some societies have traditions that limit clothing in certain circumstances, sometimes because of religious beliefs or because of the symbolism of clothing. Forensatha, for example, mandates that all official government functions have people wearing traditional clothing to them, as part of a case where the nation purposefully ties into its past.

Also, some nations are actually corporations. They mandate their employees/citizens to dress a certain way because of the professional environment those employees are in.

HEREBY ORDERS that all member nations enact necessary legislation to ensure that:

No law is passed to restrict the right of any person to employ expression however they wish,
No agent of the government acts in a way which explicitly or implicitly restricts the impression of any person, and
Governmental agents do everything in their power to create opportunities for expression.


ALLOWS member nations to enact legislation to apply the following exceptions to the above rules:

Expression may be limited in educational institutions only as far as is necessary to prevent disruptions of the educational environment,
It is permissible to punish lies or falsehoods which a person knowingly spreads about another person for the purpose of causing defamation or psychological injury, and
Expression in the furtherance of a criminal act or criminal conspiracy may be considered as evidence in legal proceedings arising from those acts, but may not be a crime in and of themselves.

The World Assembly also

URGES all member nations to provide for freedom of speech above and beyond the measures set forth in this proposal.

I would include exemptions about military, war, people in prison, prisoners of war, and the like. Otherwise, I like.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Our gracious thanks to the diplomat from Forensatha.

We agree with most of your points, and have added exceptions to the text above for the armed forces, decency, formality, imprisonment, and public disorder.

If any nation is a corporation that requires a certain uniform at all times we would be against that and this proposal as we want to implement it will outlaw that.

Expression may be limited in educational institutions only as far as is necessary to prevent disruptions of the educational environment,
It is permissible to punish lies or falsehoods which a person knowingly spreads about another person for the purpose of causing defamation or psychological injury, and
Expression in the furtherance of a criminal act or criminal conspiracy may be considered as evidence in legal proceedings arising from those acts, but may not be a crime in and of themselves.
A nation may restrict the free expression of its armed forces when there is a legitimate security risk.
Clothing may be regulated to ensure a level of decency necessary for the psychological health of the nation or for specific formal occasions which a person can be absent from without significant social, political, or economic ramifications.
Any person being held legally against his or her will may have their expression limited for the security of their holding area, but not beyond that purpose.
Expression that causes public disturbance may be limited as long as there is a way to have the same message reach the same audience. Permits may be required for certain kinds of expression.

I would suggest making the bolded one a much larger exception in the area of clothing. The reason is that military personel will often be required to wear a uniform or some kind of armor during combat, plus the restrictions in clothing are part of their training discipline.

Otherwise... I'm okay with letting corporations not get considered.

Certain items of clothing may actually be required for safety purposes while undertaking certain types of work... and I seem to recall that there already is a WA resolution covering that matter...

Also, you currently fail to allow for restrictions on speech/communication to protect 'classified' information, in both a 'national security' context (edit: except for members of the armed forces) and that of commercial secrets (OOC: such as, in RL, the recipe for Coca Cola... ;)), and about other information that was imparted under conditions where not spreading it further should reasonably be expected (OOC: such as, for members of various Christian sects, in the privacy of the confessional): I strongly suggest adding these fields to those in which exceptions would be possible.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


Edit: So would, or wouldn't, clause #3 allow nations to forbid [or to continue forbidding] false advertising, the impersonation of policemen or other authority figures, the production of counterfeit documents, and/or other forms of fraud? Would 'incitement to murder', which after all consists solely of expression, be bannable?

Oh, and some further points about the inclusion of 'clothing' in the protected forms of expression: So you would be forcing all WA member nations to let anybody & everybody within them wear any uniforms or religious vestments or ceremonial costumes, insignia of rank, medals/orders/decorations, armorial emblems, etc, that those people might choose, regardless of any qualifying circumstances (such as actually belonging to the organisations to which the costumes belong, or having earned the medals appropriately) that would previously have been required in any of those cases?
I suspect that a LOT of people -- including most of those who are "properly" entitled to wear the items in question, as well as the members of all the governments that want their people to be able to see who's who by such features, would object to that idea...

A small thing, since several other people have given you plenty of food for thought:

No agent of the government acts in a way which explicitly or implicitly restricts the impression of any person,

Unless you meant to make press gangs legal everywhere, I think you meant "expression" :)

I wish to pose a quesiton to the distinguished representative from Nimtiam.

In Scotchpinestan (and in many other nations), it is illegal to desecrate our nation's flag. Other nations, on the other hand, have defined flag desecration as a protected form of free speech. Would the latter be the case for all WA nations under this proposal?

In Scotchpinestan (and in many other nations), it is illegal to desecrate our nation's flag. Other nations, on the other hand, have defined flag desecration as a protected form of free speech. Would the latter be the case for all WA nations under this proposal?
I'm not the Nimtiam ambassador, but I don't see any exemption for flag-burning from the general protection. Unless you can construe is as something which causes (not, I note, is likely to cause) a disturbance. I suppose a more pertinant question is whether or not the ambassador thinks it should be exempted.

Personally I think you should stop worshipping flags and get on with something more useful, but there you go.

7. Expression that causes public disturbance may be limited as long as there is a way to have the same message reach the same audience. Permits may be required for certain kinds of expression.
This is very vague and wibbly, in my opinion. What do you intend by "certain kinds of expression"? Is this supposed to contain incitement to hatred, at which it fails dismally? And why "causes", implying that the police can't act until the damage is done, rather than "is likely to cause"?

We've relisted the exceptions to take into account the various good points presented by other diplomats. We've tried to address all concerns below with a reference to a new exception.

If anyone could assist with condensing the exceptions into more general ones (without broadening them over much) in order to simplify the proposal that would be appreciated.

Here are the exceptions as referenced in this post in case they change in numbering before this post is read.

1. Exceptions regarding a basic level of decency in clothing,
2. Exceptions regarding clothing for persons legally imprisoned,
3. Exceptions regarding orderly running of a confinement facility,
4. Exceptions allowing for the practical requirements of a profession,
5. Exceptions regarding dress code at optional government events,
6. Exceptions allowing for the requirement of certain dress codes in the armed forces,
7. Exceptions allowing for the explicit or implicit requirement of confidentiality before receiving certain information,
8. Exceptions regulating public disturbance as long as there are provisions to create a legal place for that expression,
9. Exceptions banning malicious expression, and
10. Exceptions dealing with expression as part of a criminal conspiracy.


The lack of clothing itself can be considered expressing oneself,
Exception 1

Forensatha, for example, mandates that all official government functions have people wearing traditional clothing to them
Exception 5. We do not believe that this should be mandated at any mandated event, but at optional events it is ok. It can be strongly encouraged, however.

I would include exemptions about military, war, people in prison, prisoners of war,
Exceptions 6, 2 and 3

Certain items of clothing may actually be required for safety purposes while undertaking certain types of work
Exception 4

Also, you currently fail to allow for restrictions on speech/communication to protect 'classified' information
Exception 7

So would, or wouldn't, clause #3 allow nations to forbid [or to continue forbidding] false advertising, the impersonation of policemen or other authority figures, the production of counterfeit documents, and/or other forms of fraud? Would 'incitement to murder', which after all consists solely of expression, be bannable?
Under the new Exception 9 false advertising, impersonation (with intent to harm--harmless impersonation is fine) and fraud could be banned. Incitement to murder would be allowed unless the person doing the inciting was part of a criminal conspiracy. (Exception 10)

Oh, and some further points about the inclusion of 'clothing' in the protected forms of expression: So you would be forcing all WA member nations to let anybody & everybody within them wear any uniforms or religious vestments or ceremonial costumes, insignia of rank, medals/orders/decorations, armorial emblems, etc, that those people might choose, regardless of any qualifying circumstances (such as actually belonging to the organisations to which the costumes belong, or having earned the medals appropriately) that would previously have been required in any of those cases?
I suspect that a LOT of people -- including most of those who are "properly" entitled to wear the items in question, as well as the members of all the governments that want their people to be able to see who's who by such features, would object to that idea...
Unless it falls under Exception 9, then yes.

Unless you meant to make press gangs legal everywhere, I think you meant "expression"
Thank you :)

In Scotchpinestan (and in many other nations), it is illegal to desecrate our nation's flag. Other nations, on the other hand, have defined flag desecration as a protected form of free speech. Would the latter be the case for all WA nations under this proposal?

Yes. Flag desecration would be a protected form of expression. Desecration of a flag is an important tool of political speech and banning it would be an impediment to the freedoms this proposal is trying to guarantee.

3. Governmental agents do everything in their power to create opportunities for expression.


His Majesty of the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisitions compels me to address this issue. Should this legislation pass, would it be a mandate from an international governing body how a country should spend? A problem of this proposal is that section 3, to His Majesty, is rather vague.

For example, there is no definition of "everything in their power" and it states "government agencies." Therefore (and this is an extreme case), would it be safe to assume that government agencies, regardless of their founding purpose, would have a new purpose of promoting opportunities for expression?

Moreover, does "everything in their power" absolutely require that governments divert all funds to the promotion of opportunities for expression?

On the other side of the spectrum, if nations are allowed to interpret this clause, would there not be a result of absolutely no change in the amount of opportunities of expression?

His Majesty is eager to view any discussions and replies to this matter.

1. Exceptions regarding a basic level of decency in clothing,
2. Exceptions regarding clothing for persons legally imprisoned,
3. Exceptions regarding orderly running of a confinement facility,
4. Exceptions allowing for the practical requirements of a profession,
5. Exceptions regarding dress code at optional government events,
6. Exceptions allowing for the requirement of certain dress codes in the armed forces,
7. Exceptions allowing for the explicit or implicit requirement of confidentiality before receiving certain information,
8. Exceptions regulating public disturbance as long as there are provisions to create a legal place for that expression,
9. Exceptions banning malicious expression, and
10. Exceptions dealing with expression as part of a criminal conspiracy.


I would suggest wording it like this:

1. A basic level of decency in clothing,
2. Clothing for persons legally imprisoned,
3. Orderly running of a confinement facility,
4. Practical requirements of a profession,
5. Dress code at optional government events,
6. The requirement of certain dress codes in the armed forces,
7. The explicit or implicit requirement of confidentiality before receiving certain information,
8. Public disturbance as long as there are provisions to create a legal place for that expression,
9. Banning malicious expression
10. Dealing with expression as part of a criminal conspiracy.


Exception 5. We do not believe that this should be mandated at any mandated event, but at optional events it is ok. It can be strongly encouraged, however.

I would still object over the issue of it being limited like that, but that's only because of my culture. If no one else has any objections to it, then there's no reason to worry about my own.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I would also include an exception as relates to religious expression. In the Solarian Isles, we don't outlaw other religions, but we also don't allow public expression of those. This is the only area in which we restrict freedom of expression, and the vast majority of our populace believes that it is reasonable, considering the freedoms that His Holiness graciously allows. At the very least, allowing an option for governments to define what causes a problem would allow us to tailor it to our needs.

In the service of His Holiness,
Ambassador Lathom

ASSERTING that freedom of expression is a basic human right,
[/INDENT]

I agree with this and why are peoples replys so long when you can say it with a few words:p:rolleyes::D

This is a good Act. I see no reason for it to pass.

This is a good Act. I see no reason for it to pass.

Hmm, you like it, but you see no reason to pass it. You've got to love the logic in this place.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I would also include an exception as relates to religious expression. In the Solarian Isles, we don't outlaw other religions, but we also don't allow public expression of those. This is the only area in which we restrict freedom of expression, and the vast majority of our populace believes that it is reasonable, considering the freedoms that His Holiness graciously allows. At the very least, allowing an option for governments to define what causes a problem would allow us to tailor it to our needs.
I'd have a very serious problem with this, since it's one of the classic discrimination-by-stealth techniques.

However it does remind me that there are other groups than the military that may have good (ish) reason for dress codes. The clergy of some religious groups, for instance, or youth activity groups, or various jobs where some kind of uniform is a useful marker, and so on and so forth.

I would also include an exception as relates to religious expression. In the Solarian Isles, we don't outlaw other religions, but we also don't allow public expression of those. This is the only area in which we restrict freedom of expression, and the vast majority of our populace believes that it is reasonable, considering the freedoms that His Holiness graciously allows. At the very least, allowing an option for governments to define what causes a problem would allow us to tailor it to our needs.

In the service of His Holiness,
Ambassador Lathom

Such an exception would defeat the purpose of this entire proposal. Religious expression is essential to the development of a better world, which is what the World Assembly must stand for.

However it does remind me that there are other groups than the military that may have good (ish) reason for dress codes. The clergy of some religious groups, for instance, or youth activity groups, or various jobs where some kind of uniform is a useful marker, and so on and so forth.

Jobs uniforms could fall under the 'practicality of profession' exception.

Uniforms for youth activity groups should be encouraged, but not required.

Jobs uniforms could fall under the 'practicality of profession' exception.
Some could. Some, like the hemp tie traditionally worn by Gobbannaeg lawyers, couldn't.

Uniforms for youth activity groups should be encouraged, but not required.
At the moment it's forbidden.

Some could. Some, like the hemp tie traditionally worn by Gobbannaeg lawyers, couldn't.

Is there a need to require such traditional dress? It is our opinion in writing this proposal that anything that is simply traditional shouldn't be required as it is a restriction of expression.


At the moment it's forbidden.

Not by design. This is meant to forbid requiring a dress code, not forbidding encouraging a dress code, as long as there weren't negative consequences for not following the dress code. If there's a badly worded part of the resolution, kindly point our attention to it.

Is there a need to require such traditional dress? It is our opinion in writing this proposal that anything that is simply traditional shouldn't be required as it is a restriction of expression.
I'm inclined to disagree.

The main reason an organisation chooses to have a uniform is to give a sense of identity. I'm not a fan of uniforms, but I don't see a good reason to stop organisations in general having them. The person who feels their expression being restricted doesn't have to join the particular organisation, after all.

Not by design. This is meant to forbid requiring a dress code, not forbidding encouraging a dress code, as long as there weren't negative consequences for not following the dress code. If there's a badly worded part of the resolution, kindly point our attention to it.
Good point. I'm sure some enterprising smart-arse will try claiming that an encouragment is implicitly limiting their expression, but I take back my objection.

And, I realize I was being sleepy unclear in my arguments. Requiring a dress code for a youth group or organization or some such would actually be allowed, as long as it is not proscribed by the government or controlled in any way by an agent of the government.

Thus, the lawyer dress code you are referencing would be illegal to require, but dress codes at a religious youth group would be allowed.

And, I realize I was being sleepy unclear in my arguments.
And I was obviously too sleepy to have picked up on it myself. You're quite right, sorry.

I suppose I come back finally to the whole business about optional government events. If everyone else is allowed to set a dress code at work, why shouldn't the government? Not many do, but why forbid it?

(By the way, lawyers in court are in a government-ordained environment in many countries, so can't have an imposed dress code as it stands.)

Lawyer dress code would be illegal, yes.

Like the proposal says, as long as the event is optional a dress code is allowable. However, we don't think that people should have to restrict their expression in order to take part in government.

However, we don't think that people should have to restrict their expression in order to take part in government.
But it's fine for them to have to restrict their expression in order to work for certain companies or organisations, or in particular places, or whatever other variations people come up with? I don't follow the logic.

In looking this over, I agree with most of it. However, two things caught my eye.


Exceptions banning malicious expression, and
Exceptions dealing with expression as part of a criminal conspiracy.


The definition you have of 'malicious expression' really is vague. Who determines whether it's a 'known to be false' statement? Not everything is black and white.

For example, Rutianas has two political parties. Our minority party has been consistently viewed as making 'false statements' that are 'intended to harm' by our majority party. According to your definition, Rutianas could potentially pass a law determining that our minority party not be allowed to express themselves at all due to the definition of 'malicious expression'. I'm not saying this would happen, but it's possible by your definition.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there should be a definition of 'criminal conspiracy'. It would be an easy loophole for some governments to state that children not wearing school uniforms, or flag burning, or political propaganda by the opposition, etc, constitute a 'criminal conspiracy'.

That said, it's good that this is being tackled, but I'd like to see those be dealt with before I can pledge support to this. I don't want those loopholes being exploited by less than honorable nations.

Thank you.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

i think the proposal's intentions are good however it needs work. i looked over some of the reccomended changes and agree with them. also take special note of Forensatha, because he has greatly helped many of my proposals.

i find it interested that the respected ambassador from Nimtiam chose to tackle the problem of freedom of expression, even though it would be much more effective to work on legislation for freedom of speech (thereby imply expression which would be included in the proposal). if Nimtiam decided to tackle that issue, we would be here debating clothing.

But it's fine for them to have to restrict their expression in order to work for certain companies or organisations, or in particular places, or whatever other variations people come up with? I don't follow the logic.

The difference I see is that government is an entity which everyone should be able to be a part of. I trust that the free-market will work on expression at work, but there would be no such effect in the government.

The definition you have of 'malicious expression' really is vague. Who determines whether it's a 'known to be false' statement? Not everything is black and white.

What I meant by that is that the person speaking knows it to be false. If they thought it was true when they said it that it isn't malicious. I'll work on the wording, though.

Exactly who determines it, though, is a matter that should be left up to the individual nations. Everyone's justice system is different.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there should be a definition of 'criminal conspiracy'.

I'll look at it and see if I can do anything about the definition for criminal conspiracy.

i find it interested that the respected ambassador from Nimtiam chose to tackle the problem of freedom of expression, even though it would be much more effective to work on legislation for freedom of speech (thereby imply expression which would be included in the proposal). if Nimtiam decided to tackle that issue, we would be here debating clothing.

With all due respect to the Ambassador for Wachichi, it is Nimtiam's view that we should guarantee all types of expression, not just speech, and that proposals should state what they're actually trying to accomplish and not sneak things in through the back door.

In my opinion, the main reason for the clothing provision is to ensure people are allowed to have, for instance, political slogans or potentially offensive things on their t-shirts. There really would not be anything to gain in terms of freedom of expression from giving people the right to wear whatever they want, even with a whole load of qualifications. I suggest that the idea of protected expression be explicitly extended to cover slogans or images on clothing, or wearing a particular style of dress, and including clothing itself as protected expression dropped.

The vital question as to whether it's a right worth protecting would be if an article of clothing is intended to convey some kind of statement, whether it's what's imprinted on it or the clothing itself. That should be protected, but extending freedom of expression to cover wearing whatever you want and then piling a lot of exceptions onto it doesn't work for me.

I'm just going to take a quick opportunity to play devil's advocate with this. These are just the scenarios I see as possibilities coming from this legislation.

HEREBY ORDERS that all member nations enact necessary legislation to ensure that:

1. No law is passed to restrict the right of any person to employ expression however they wish,

1. What happens if a country raises the fees for starting a newspaper, tv network, or radio station? That country would essentially make it harder for the common person to express their opinions. Think Poll Tax to get my meaning here.

2. No agent of the government acts in a way which explicitly or implicitly restricts the expression of any person, and

2. What if the nation's version of the "FCC" increases the fees for their license? Could this be considered restricting the right of personal expression?

3. Governmental agents do everything in their power to create opportunities for expression.

3. If a nation were to do "everything in their power", this would/could include the use of the military to seize the media outlets and taking them under state control to "force" the "fair" allocation of speech to all parties and the possible misguided assurance that everyone gets their fair say.

With the possibility of some to take this and run with it in their countries, you could run into serious problems of radio frequency bandwidth restriction/allocation, power regulation.

Speech is not restricted to the street corner on a soapbox. It is not just wearing a t-shirt someone doesn't agree with. It is not just burning a flag. If someone wants to broadcast a radio show in your nation to ensure it had a wide enough bandwidth to cover all the channels with enough power to be heard over anything else out there forcing the population to hear what they had to say or turn off their sets...

There's a bit of a problem with this. Under this code, a country would not be allowed to restrict this "speech", but no one else would be able to speak unless they shouted even louder. Any nation would be helpless to stop it because they are being tasked with doing everything in their power to protect it.

So what is the fix?

Perhaps just ensuring that a government will not protect any "right to expression", be it government, private, individual or corporate, over anyone else's might be a fix.

Respectfully submitted,
CSMDAD

Oh, and some further points about the inclusion of 'clothing' in the protected forms of expression: So you would be forcing all WA member nations to let anybody & everybody within them wear any uniforms or religious vestments or ceremonial costumes, insignia of rank, medals/orders/decorations, armorial emblems, etc, that those people might choose, regardless of any qualifying circumstances (such as actually belonging to the organisations to which the costumes belong, or having earned the medals appropriately) that would previously have been required in any of those cases?
I suspect that a LOT of people -- including most of those who are "properly" entitled to wear the items in question, as well as the members of all the governments that want their people to be able to see who's who by such features, would object to that idea...
Unless it falls under Exception 9, then yes.

Have you actually run this idea that civilians should be able to wear any military uniforms, rank insignia and/or medals that they want -- without having "earned" them -- past the leaders of your own nation's armed forces (if you have any)? If so, then what did THEY have to say about it?

(I was also going to suggest that you'd probably need an exception to the speech/writing rules for when the expression concerned would be harmful to military discipline, but I suppose Esception #4 would cover this...)

4. Exceptions allowing for the practical requirements of a profession,

Edit: Hr'rrm, on further thought, the amred forces have a practical requirement that their uniforms be recognisably different from civilian clothing -- so that they'd be entitled to proper treatment as PoWs, if captured, apart from anything else -- so I'd say that banning civilian use of military uniforms & insignia (including the relevant medals) would also be justifiable under this exception.
Ditto for protecting the distinctive nature of uniforms for police, firefighters, and certain other professions...

I suggest that the idea of protected expression be explicitly extended to cover slogans or images on clothing, or wearing a particular style of dress, and including clothing itself as protected expression dropped.

What's the difference between guaranteeing the right to wear any style of clothing and just defining clothing as expression? I think your way works but I honestly don't see the difference.

Cmsdad--

As for fees and the like. I think that should be allowable as long as it is not targeted at the "expression". I'll mess with the wording in the proposal a bit, but basically: if they raise a fee on ALL TV (as long as it is not prohibitive) or ALL RADIO then it would be allowed. If it's on a specific channel though, it wouldn't be.

If a nation were to do "everything in their power", this would/could include the use of the military to seize the media outlets and taking them under state control to "force" the "fair" allocation of speech to all parties and the possible misguided assurance that everyone gets their fair say.

No, because that would interfere with the original ban on restricting expression. Maybe I'll add a "as long as this does not interfere with clauses 1 or 2". (OOC: Thanks, Asimov :))

There's a bit of a problem with this. Under this code, a country would not be allowed to restrict this "speech", but no one else would be able to speak unless they shouted even louder. Any nation would be helpless to stop it because they are being tasked with doing everything in their power to protect it.

I'll add "as long as such expression doesn't interfere with others' expression" to clause 1.

Have you actually run this idea that civilians should be able to wear any military uniforms, rank insignia and/or medals that they want -- without having "earned" them -- past the leaders of your own nation's armed forces (if you have any)? If so, then what did THEY have to say about it?

As long as people wearing the uniforms does not interfere with military operations (which would fall under exception 4) they are fine with it. Many citizens of Nimtiam would frown upon people who wore those uniforms and consider them extremely disrespectful, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Hr'rrm, on further thought, the amred forces have a practical requirement that their uniforms be recognisably different from civilian clothing -- so that they'd be entitled to proper treatment as PoWs, if captured, apart from anything else -- so I'd say that banning civilian use of military uniforms & insignia (including the relevant medals) would also be justifiable under this exception.
Ditto for protecting the distinctive nature of uniforms for police, firefighters, and certain other professions...

If citizens were using uniforms in a way that interfered with such groups doing their jobs (aka, impersonating the police or pretending to be firefighters in an attempt to deceive) then it could fall under exception 4. Intent to deceive to harm could also fall under exception 9. However, someone dressing up as a police officer to do a public protest of police behavior should be allowed.

Note: I'm going to edit malicious expression to limit it to expression where the speaker not only knows its false, but intends or could reasonably expect others to think it was true.

Exceptions 2 and 6 have been struck as they are redundant (fall under Exceptions 3 and 4 respectively).

They will not be included in the final proposal but are left in so that the numbering isn't completely messed up for any newcomers to the debate.

Also, I would like to take the chance to thank all of the honored Ambassadors who have aided in writing this proposal. It takes a great many minds to spot loopholes and it's well appreciated.

The difference I see is that government is an entity which everyone should be able to be a part of. I trust that the free-market will work on expression at work, but there would be no such effect in the government.
Ah. I don't trust the free market at all, but that's a separate argument. You're forgetting about all those nations where government, or elements of it, is not something that everyone can be a part of. An investiture ceremony where the High Prince of Gobbannium could turn up to be crowned by a priest wearing jeans and a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For The Other Guy" T-shirt wouldn't really be a good thing.



What I meant by that is that the person speaking knows it to be false. If they thought it was true when they said it that it isn't malicious. I'll work on the wording, though.
Trying to legislate on intent has been the ruin of a good many laws all over the place. Don't go there.

I'm also a bit alarmed that the clause I thought was supposed to allow us to drop heavily on incitement to hatred apparently isn't meant for that at all.

With all due respect to the Ambassador for Wachichi, it is Nimtiam's view that we should guarantee all types of expression, not just speech, and that proposals should state what they're actually trying to accomplish and not sneak things in through the back door.
No arguments with that, sir!

1. What happens if a country raises the fees for starting a newspaper, tv network, or radio station? That country would essentially make it harder for the common person to express their opinions. Think Poll Tax to get my meaning here.
You're other arguments are well worth addressing, but this one's running on two fundamental misconceptions that a lot of people seem to miss. First, varying the levels of fees is regulatory, not legislatory. What's part of the law is that fees are charged, not how much.

More importantly, even if the fees were (unwisely) part of the law, it wouldn't matter. Your "right to employ expression" remains uncompromised. Your ability to afford that right was never guaranteed. This is why legislation that only talks in terms of rights isn't nearly as useful as its proud proposers think.

Ah. I don't trust the free market at all, but that's a separate argument. You're forgetting about all those nations where government, or elements of it, is not something that everyone can be a part of. An investiture ceremony where the High Prince of Gobbannium could turn up to be crowned by a priest wearing jeans and a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For The Other Guy" T-shirt wouldn't really be a good thing.

Nimtiam still regards government as too fundamental a right to restrict expression within it. We realize that in many countries not everyone is able to be in the government, but we'll save that fight for another day.

Trying to legislate on intent has been the ruin of a good many laws all over the place. Don't go there.

Personally, I've seen it work many times. It requires a prudent judiciary is all.

I'm also a bit alarmed that the clause I thought was supposed to allow us to drop heavily on incitement to hatred apparently isn't meant for that at all.

If by you "incitement to hatred" you mean someone speaking against a certain group to try and get people to hate that group, that is a form of expression that must be protected.

First, varying the levels of fees is regulatory, not legislatory. What's part of the law is that fees are charged, not how much.

This proposal doesn't just deal with legislatory acts. Look at clause 2.

Your ability to afford that right was never guaranteed. This is why legislation that only talks in terms of rights isn't nearly as useful as its proud proposers think.

This proposal would ban charging for specific expression, but if it's for all expression (as in, charging to put up a billboard on government property) that's ok under exception 11.

What's the difference between guaranteeing the right to wear any style of clothing and just defining clothing as expression? I think your way works but I honestly don't see the difference.

Wearing (or not wearing) certain items of clothing may be an exercise of free speech, but not all clothing is an exercise of free speech; in the same way that all squares are by definition also rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

In fact, I propose dropping the whole specific definition of clothing as free expression. Clothing can be a means of expression, but I'm sure we all agree that 90% of the time, we aren't trying to express much of anything through our clothing. The problems we generate by including all clothing as protected expression far outweigh the gains in rights achieved.

I am of the view that "any act... which serves to express a person's emotions, thoughts, or ideas to others", is wide-ranging enough that it can accomodate those instances where clothing is used to express some statement without having to generate all these issues by explicitly considering all clothing as protected expression.

I'll consider it. My thanks to the ambassador from Kelssek.

respected Ambassador of Nimtaim,

you've chosen to talk about freedom of expression, when, for example, a resolution dealing with freedom of speech would be much more efficient and effective. also freedom of speech isn't limited to actually talking. if defined right, freedom of speech could including writing, shirts, pants... and whatever else you would want to include.

i would also like to see someone (possibly a joint effort from us both Nimtiam) to finally get a resolution to directly address human rights. we don't have one. we have one dealing with criminals, prisoners..etc. but not for other humans when we should.

respected Ambassador of Nimtaim,

you've chosen to talk about freedom of expression, when, for example, a resolution dealing with freedom of speech would be much more efficient and effective. also freedom of speech isn't limited to actually talking. if defined right, freedom of speech could including writing, shirts, pants... and whatever else you would want to include.

As I said before, if I wish to address something in a proposal I will explicitly address it and not try to slip it in.

i would also like to see someone (possibly a joint effort from us both Nimtiam) to finally get a resolution to directly address human rights. we don't have one. we have one dealing with criminals, prisoners..etc. but not for other humans when we should.



We are writing a non-discrimination statute if the honoured Ambassador is interested in such things we would welcome their input. Its drafting thread may be found here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567124


yours e.t.c. ,

i would like to bring something to the attention of the ambassador from Nimtiam.

another nation is introducing legislation for approval by the delegates titled "Freedom of Expression". the nation is "Omg the killed kenny" or something of the sort. i don't know if he stole your idea, or if you two worked together, but in any case, maybe you two should c0-author a piece on the issue.

It's an expanded version of a free-expression act I wrote for the United Nations when it was still the United Nations. At any rate, it failed (www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Free_Expression_Act), and I don't have a telegram campaign lined up for this one.

I have to admit I prefer the Kennyite version, even if it does still regard politicians as fair game for slander despite my best efforts to persuade the ambassador otherwise. I've come up with some creative solutions to that problem -- not everything that is legal is safe, after all :-p

I have to admit I prefer the Kennyite version, even if it does still regard politicians as fair game for slander despite my best efforts to persuade the ambassador otherwise. I've come up with some creative solutions to that problem -- not everything that is legal is safe, after all :-p

But what's politics without mudslinging?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Can someone supply a link to this other bill?

Just one thing:

While the Peoples of Sasquatewain are aware of the possibility of abuse of such a clause, shouldn't a government be allowed to suspend freedom of expression during times of war or on matters of national security? Perhaps this Ambassador simply needs to get himself a new set of glasses, but he could not find a clause related to such matters.

However, the Peoples, I state once more, are aware that such a clause might be abused by a Nation if it simply imposses an eternal state-of-war within the Nation. This is a natural objection to such a clause, but the Peoples still believe it is almost a requirement in such a proposal.

It is for this reason that the Peoples of Sasquatewain are unwilling to vote for just about any proposal regarding freedom of expression.

I have to admit I prefer the Kennyite version, even if it does still regard politicians as fair game for slander despite my best efforts to persuade the ambassador otherwise. I've come up with some creative solutions to that problem -- not everything that is legal is safe, after all :-p
OOC: which reminds me, wasn't Prince Rhodri going to make his 'Steward' accept Alfred Sweynsson's challenge to a duel?

OOC: which reminds me, wasn't Prince Rhodri going to make his 'Steward' accept Alfred Sweynsson's challenge to a duel?
He was that. We didn't seem to coincide for a while, and I forgot. Apologies. Poke me by telegram and we'll sort out when to do that.