NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of Expression
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Assured that freedom of expression is an essential human right deserving of international protection;

Determined that no one should have to put their lives, families, liberty or property at risk for expressing honest dissent with, otherwise criticizing or even satirizing their leaders, governments, societies, churches or any other institutions of established power;

Chastened by the sacrifices already made by prisoners and victims of conscience throughout the world;

Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud;

Agreed that for purposes of this resolution defamation is defined as the use of knowingly false information, or the raising of such with reckless disregard for its truthfulness, in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.With special thanks to Gruenberg, Urgench and Yelda.

Could we get a Doctor in here? I think the Ambassador for the Federal Republic has lost his marbles, and turned into a pinky hippy.

But we support his resolution

A splendid Resolution which the Dominion of New Leicestershire is proud to support.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Done and done: approved. I'm glad you've finally resolved the freedom of expression issue.

What, no funny poll?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

What, no funny poll?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
The Aundotutunagirian People are saddened by the absence of a poll.

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench has instructed us to vote for this resolution. We applaud its authors.

May the Horde of Omigodtheykilledkenny ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.


Yours sincerely,

This violates my nations right to keep its people under its thumb! I plead the nations of the world to strike this down to keep dissent down!

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Law-breaking citizens and law-abiding non-citizens deserve free speech too. Human rights are universal, and free speech is a universal human rights.

Prisoners and legal and illegal aliens are among the people most in need of free speech.

The people of Golden Spiral reject this tyranny!

Actually, breaking the law is a great way to have your freedoms revoked. Unless you think that confining people against their will, confiscating their property, or administering lethal injections is somehow a special reward governments mete out to the privileged few.

The Federal Republic concedes the absence of a poll and is presently at work to correct the error.

illegal aliens are among the people most in need of free speech.


So people who are illegally in my nation should have a say so on how I run my nation? That is silly and I urge the WA to reject this!

Voted for. Couldn't see any good reason not to.

We could do with a humorous poll.

We could do with a humorous poll."Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." --John 16:24

The Aundotutunagirian People are saddened by the absence of a poll.

You mean you're not opposed to the idea of a poll? I'm shocked.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This resolution is awful. But it doesn't have anything to do with the definition of pornographic. It has more to do with my nation's sovereignty, as well as the sovereignty of other nations.

Why do I care if another country wants to suppress it's people's behavior? If you look at my nation you will see that we do not do this, but why should I care if someone else wants to, provided the populace has food and shelter and access to medical aid and all of the things necessary for prosperity?

Isn't this kind of a small issue for the WA? I felt the same way about Patient's Rights, except I voted for that one because it was in the interest's of maintaining health and wellness standards of privacy and etc, and I believe that you need that to have good medical care.

But this is just idealistic stuff. It's more suitable for the constitution of a single nation as opposed to a rule among a group.

Your logic makes no sense. You bat around the sovereignty line as a reliable de-facto position on any resolution you don't like, yet at the same time you apparently approve of infringements on sovereignty on questions of social justice. You voice, I assume for your benefit, genuine concerns about the well-being of citizens, and the government's responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter them. Do you not care if these same governments are placing implicit gag orders on these same citizens, persecuting them, tracking them, imprisoning them, killing them, threatening their families, if they dare criticize them?

I suppose "prosperity" has a different meaning in Qin.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

Voted for. Couldn't see any good reason not to.

Yup, that just about sums it up.

This resolution is awful. But it doesn't have anything to do with the definition of pornographic. It has more to do with my nation's sovereignty, as well as the sovereignty of other nations.

Why do I care if another country wants to suppress it's people's behavior? If you look at my nation you will see that we do not do this, but why should I care if someone else wants to, provided the populace has food and shelter and access to medical aid and all of the things necessary for prosperity?

Isn't this kind of a small issue for the WA? I felt the same way about Patient's Rights, except I voted for that one because it was in the interest's of maintaining health and wellness standards of privacy and etc, and I believe that you need that to have good medical care.

But this is just idealistic stuff. It's more suitable for the constitution of a single nation as opposed to a rule among a group.



Why should you care whether other nations oppress their citizens or not Ambassador ? Perhaps because this organisation represents a community of nations who legislate to create better societies for all.


What kind of issue would the honoured Ambassador like the w.a. to deal with? And frankly why have they done nothing whatsoever about these issues they hold to be of such gravity ?


Finally, what does the honoured Ambassador think a constitution is except a collection of rules for a group ?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Tis an honourable resolution. The Korintari people hath decided it best to vote yea by plebiscite.

Senior Director Timothy Salazar, Director of Human Services
Director of International Affairs, T'blis Oltavi
Security Director, Cheri Konstado
Director Emeritus Zakir Myosin Sezadu III
et al.

A simple, but thorough resolution.

On behalf of His Majesty King Michael the First and his subjects, I vote FOR this resolution.

Happy New Years.
Doña Grace Consuelo de Aramade-Cortez
Representative to the WA, The Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo

This is an outrage! Any group looking to bring down our government can use this resolution to do so! Dictatorships are founded on censored media and speech. The Crimson Storm just installed new loudspeakers to remind our citizens how happy they are. If the loudspeakers are taken away, our citizens(doped up on government distributed drugs) will not remember they are happy! For the happiness of the people of all dictatorships everywhere, i declare that The Crimson Storm stands opposed to this resolution.

-Eamon Teeling, Steward to the Lord Richard Rahl, Ambassador of The Crimson Storm

I object! This limits my right to beat up anyone who knowingly lies about my embassy.

OK, so it only limits my right to legally beat up anyone who knowingly lies about my embassy, but these details are important.

The Trilateral Federation supports this resolution. As an aside, we find the objections to the resolution (which seem to center around shrill appeals to sovereignty and sad appeals for dictators) to be quite amusing, if a little off base.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Kingdom of Dungeyland supports this resolution.

Draistania supports this and wonders if this organization always has people voicing their right to be dictators? Aren't dictators more the kind of people who would prefer to be independent of an organization that exists in large part to protect peoples' civil rights? Why are they here?

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

None of these exceptions are defined though. Hence, a dictatorship could simply fudge up a definition, and go on with their policies as planned. Since abuse is not defined either, the whole resolution can be rendered meaningless if a nation uses non-conventional definitions. To counter that, I would suggest defining the terms in question. Our nation is willing to support the resolution if that takes place.

Thank you.

've always felt the need definition is only needed when the resolution itself requires a definition of a term to be different from the standard dictionary definition, or more specific then that given by a dictionary. The Law Means what the Law Says, academic araud means academic fraud, and can't be defined as "being nasty about the government". Otherwise you'll need to define every term, then define every term in the definition, every term in that definition, ad infinitum.

None of these exceptions are defined though. Hence, a dictatorship could simply fudge up a definition, and go on with their policies as planned. Since abuse is not defined either, the whole resolution can be rendered meaningless if a nation uses non-conventional definitions. To counter that, I would suggest defining the terms in question. Our nation is willing to support the resolution if that takes place.

Since the ambassador seems to have forgotten that resolutions at vote can't be changed, can I suggest that he stops drivelling inanities like this and just votes against it?

--
Cerys Coch, who is glad not to be a "political leader" any more.

None of these exceptions are defined though. Hence, a dictatorship could simply fudge up a definition, and go on with their policies as planned. Since abuse is not defined either, the whole resolution can be rendered meaningless if a nation uses non-conventional definitions.

This is a valid point, although we should all draw a different conclusion as a result. The resolution is mildly and generally stated, leaving the enforcement and implementation up to the individual nations. To all who are worried about affronts to your sovereignty: the resolution does not have the teeth to bite you.

We vote against any resolution that unduly steals our rights as an individual nation, but find no problem with the current resolution. We vote "yea."

Hirman Goostren
Theocracy of Harmonious Treefolk

I find it curious and morbidly amusing that, within legislation designed to guarantee citizens certain "rights" to free expression, the largest portion of the document is dedicated to identifying what citizens will not be allowed to express. This is a slippery slope and history shows that it is much harder to undo it once it has been done.
The Democratic Republic of Scook Whole-heartedly rejects this legislation and urges other freedom-loving nations to do so as well.

We urge the Assembly to stay out of the business of "saving us from ourselves" by legislating moral issues.

I find it curious and morbidly amusing that, within legislation designed to guarantee citizens certain "rights" to free expression, the largest portion of the document is dedicated to identifying what citizens will not be allowed to express. This is a slippery slope and history shows that it is much harder to undo it once it has been done.
The Democratic Republic of Scook Whole-heartedly rejects this legislation and urges other freedom-loving nations to do so as well.

We urge the Assembly to stay out of the business of "saving us from ourselves" by legislating moral issues.
First, nothing in this resolution identifies 'what citizens [sic] will not be allowed to express': your nation can permit your nationals to express everything on the exemption list if you so choose.

Second, with the exception of legalising pornography, is there anything on that list you particularly think people should be allowed to do? I mean, are you suggesting that it's oppressive for the WA to allow nations to impose penalties for plagiarism? Or to prevent someone from leaking classified security information? Or to enforce copyright law?

If you consider every nation that recognises trademarks or bans child pornography to be non 'freedom-living', I suspect you would be in a minority.

Third, the WA has already legislated moral issues. It banned slavery, it legalised gay marriage. Why stop now?

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

We vote against any resolution that unduly steals our rights as an individual nation...

[OOC: But isn't that what the WA is for?]

Subistratica applauds this resolution. We have already voted for it, and will urge the other WA nation in our region to do the same.

With all due respect,
History is a harsh mistress. As has been pointed out on many occasions, if we refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, we will most-likely repeat them.

If you feel strongly about debating each of the questions posed in your last post, I'm game. For now, I'm satisfied that you understood enough of my original post to make my point for me:

Why stop now?


I also wish to extend a most sincere thanks for pointing out my misuse of grammar thingys.

With the understanding that we regularly legislate morality, and to think otherwise is rather absurd, the people of the Brotherhood give a resounding 'yep'.

History is a harsh mistress. As has been pointed out on many occasions, if we refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, we will most-likely repeat them.
I agree. The old UN made a mistake in voting down a free expression law similar to this, and millions of individuals yearning to breathe free suffered because of it. I am glad that, thus far, the vote tally represents the willingness of the new World Assembly to learn from that mistake, not repeat it.

No answer having been forthcoming, I'll ask again: do you believe enforcement of trademark law is an egregious violation of free speech that the World Assembly has left the world poorer for permitting?

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

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

This part means that any government can pass some laws that will be impossible to carry out (like outlawing air-breathing or something like this), so all citizens will become law-breakers and it will be acceptable to abuse "these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among" everyone in the nation.

This resolution is a BLOCKER.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

This part means that any government can pass some laws that will be impossible to carry out (like outlawing air-breathing or something like this), so all citizens will become law-breakers and it will be acceptable to abuse "these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among" everyone in the nation.

This resolution is a BLOCKER.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Correct me if I'm wrong, but outlawing air-breathing wouldn't exactly be a reasonable restriction. If no one can possibly comply with it, I don't see how it could be reasonable. Either that or we have two very different definitions of the word 'reasonable' or you missed that word the first time around.

Paula Jenner

It is not a restriction on expression, so it will not be regulated by this resolution.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

It is not a restriction on expression, so it will not be regulated by this resolution.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

If a nation does that in order to restrict freedom of expression, then it is, indeed, regulated by this resolution, and therefore, not a reasonable restriction. Or, at least, that's how I would see it.

Paula Jenner

Resolution regulates restrictions on expression, not restrictions created with the intention to restrict expression. If restriction itself does not restrict expression it will not be regulated by this resolution.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Resolution regulates restrictions on expression, not restrictions created with the intention to restrict expression. If restriction itself does not restrict expression it will not be regulated by this resolution.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Passing a law that says you can't breathe air would certainly be a limitation on expression, seeing that if you can't breathe, you can't speak, and you can't verbally express things. So, by your own argument, you've proven my point.

Paula Jenner

Rutianis is right. The resolution explicitly outlines the only instances wherein governments may restrict expression:

- defamation;
- plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud;
- incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization;
- the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information;
- the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information;
- blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials.

The last clause was only added to prevent morons like the Test-Tube representative from claiming the government can abuse these "restrictions" to restrict anything they like. They can't.

We had quite a discussion on semantics in the General Fund debate. Why don't the definition-wankers take one of the futuristic delegations' time machines back to that vote, and leave us alone?

Passing a law that says you can't breathe air would certainly be a limitation on expression, seeing that if you can't breathe, you can't speak, and you can't verbally express things. So, by your own argument, you've proven my point.

Paula Jenner
It was just an example. Law may require everyone to swim in lava everyday or anything else that is impossible to carry out.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Rutianis is right. The resolution explicitly outlines the only instances wherein governments may restrict expression:

- defamation;
- plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud;
- incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization;
- the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information;
- the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information;
- blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials.

The last clause was only added to prevent morons like the Test-Tube representative from claiming the government can abuse these "restrictions" to restrict anything they like. They can't.

But they can, at least if they work in the government. I do not know what were your real intentions, but this resolution will not protect the freedom of speech and will block any future attempts to protect it.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

What are you blithering about?

It was just an example. Law may require everyone to swim in lava everyday or anything else that is impossible to carry out.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Swimming in lava will kill a person, therefore leaving the individual unable to express themselves, therefore being a violation of reasonable limitations.

What are you blithering about?

I wish I knew. Some people just don't know when they're proven wrong. I should know. I'm one of them. :rolleyes:

Paula Jenner

Swimming in lava will kill a person, therefore leaving the individual unable to express themselves, therefore being a violation of reasonable limitations.
Are you trying to say that this resolution will outlaw death penalty? I do not think that many people will agree with this.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Hi peoples around the world!
This resolution ist about to enforce political rights. Ok
But prevent "defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraudprevent defamation"
is not quite clear. This is a backdoor open for liberal market closure, by protecting the monopolists. not ok.
"the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; ??
Good governments do not need special kinds of information. For what?
"the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information" ok

"and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;" sounds like puritarian advise. Or not ? Good porno must watch..

so two issues yes, two no, one undecided:

Zoppistan says: no

Are you trying to say that this resolution will outlaw death penalty? I do not think that many people will agree with this.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

My "bloke talking bollocks" sense is tingling...

The Republic Of Corporatist Capitalism is planning on leaving the WA as this resolution will inevitably be passed.
I hope you're happy!

Are you trying to say that this resolution will outlaw death penalty? I do not think that many people will agree with this.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Did I say that? No. I'm merely providing a reason why your notion that a nation can pass an impossible to abide by law in order to circumvent this proposal will not work.

Reasonable limitations on freedom of expression are just that. Reasonable.

Is murder a form of expression? Yeah, it could be seen that way. However, is it a reasonable limitation to say that murder is illegal? Sure as hell is a reasonable limitation.

Is it reasonable limitation to notate some government/military/whatever documents that contain information of national security as top secret, therefore cannot be discussed freely? Yep. That's reasonable limitation.

Is it reasonable limitation to create a law who's only true effect is to create a nation of law-breaking citizens in order to remove their right to freedom of expression? No. That is in blatant violation of this resolution.

Where the death penalty is concerned, if a nation chooses to use the death penalty, this resolution is not going to have the slightest bit of effect on that. Don't jump to conclusions when you have incomplete information.

Paula Jenner

PS how does a resolution actually affect the country?
and do all resolutions become null when you leave the WA

The Republic Of Corporatist Capitalism is planning on leaving the WA as this resolution will inevitably be passed.
I hope you're happy!
Very happy. The World Assembly's goal of driving The Republic Of Corporatist Capitalism from its ranks will have been achieved!

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Did I say that? No. I'm merely providing a reason why your notion that a nation can pass an impossible to abide by law in order to circumvent this proposal will not work.

Reasonable limitations on freedom of expression are just that. Reasonable.

Is murder a form of expression? Yeah, it could be seen that way. However, is it a reasonable limitation to say that murder is illegal? Sure as hell is a reasonable limitation.

Is it reasonable limitation to notate some government/military/whatever documents that contain information of national security as top secret, therefore cannot be discussed freely? Yep. That's reasonable limitation.

Is it reasonable limitation to create a law who's only true effect is to create a nation of law-breaking citizens in order to remove their right to freedom of expression? No. That is in blatant violation of this resolution.

Where the death penalty is concerned, if a nation chooses to use the death penalty, this resolution is not going to have the slightest bit of effect on that. Don't jump to conclusions when you have incomplete information.

Paula Jenner

Sigh. Maybe my previous examples where not very good. Very well, I can propose another one. Government can require from everyone to grow themselves the pair of wings on their backs and these wings must be a part of theirs bodies. Is this example good enough for you?
I just try to point out that governments can create situation in which all citizens will be lawbreakers. After this, they can abuse mentioned allowed exceptions as much as they want. Are you really do not see this loophole?

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

PS how does a resolution actually affect the country?
and do all resolutions become null when you leave the WA
OOC: The effects of a resolution on a nation have both IC and OOC aspects. The IC aspect is that compliance with all passed resolutions that have not yet been repealed (including those that were passed before that nation joined the WA), to the letter, is considered mandatory for all WA member-nations' governments as a condition of membership in the WA... although [reasonably] exploiting any loopholes in the wording to evade their writers' intentions is perfectly legal. The OOC aspect is that the passage of a resolution alters one or more of the stats for all nations that are WA members at that time.
Once a nation leaves the WA it is no longer bound to keep any of the passed resolutions in its law-books, although continuing in voluntary compliance with those of them that the national government considers acceptable is generally allowed, but the stats stay as they are instead of reverting to the levels that they were at before those resolutions were passed.

The reverse situation, in which criminals can protest at being imprisoned, riot, etc, without recourse is far more likely, and thus a more serious problem

Sigh. Maybe my previous examples where not very good. Very well, I can propose another one. Government can require from everyone to grow themselves the pair of wings on their backs and these wings must be a part of theirs bodies. Is this example good enough for you?
I just try to point out that governments can create situation in which all citizens will be lawbreakers. After this, they can abuse mentioned allowed exceptions as much as they want. Are you really do not see this loophole?

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

No. Because the law is impossible, and the ultimate goal is to create a situation where all citizens are lawbreakers, they are in noncompliance. I don't see a loophole because my interpretation of it is that if a government creates a situation where everyone is a lawbreaker, they are doing so only to stifle freedom of expression, and therefore, are abusing the reasonable limitations clause.

Paula Jenner

Sigh. Maybe my previous examples where not very good. Very well, I can propose another one. Government can require from everyone to grow themselves the pair of wings on their backs and these wings must be a part of theirs bodies. Is this example good enough for you? Oo! Oo! I have an even better one! The government can require everyone to build an alter to DemonLordEnigma and make sacrifices on it daily, else they risk being horribly disemboweled on Automagfreek television. Or else be forced to become a contestant on a sadistic Kawaiian gameshow.

I just try to point out that governments can create situation in which all citizens will be lawbreakers. After this, they can abuse mentioned allowed exceptions as much as they want. Are you really do not see this loophole?I'm sorry, the definition of "context" must escape you as well:

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.The clause is only relevant to how nations treat the cited restrictions, not any other ridiculous law a nation could possibly pass.

Hr'rrm.
Of course, national governments would still be free to abuse these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding non-citizens...

No. Because the law is impossible, and the ultimate goal is to create a situation where all citizens are lawbreakers, they are in noncompliance. I don't see a loophole because my interpretation of it is that if a government creates a situation where everyone is a lawbreaker, they are doing so only to stifle freedom of expression, and therefore, are abusing the reasonable limitations clause.

Paula Jenner
I already answered on this:
Resolution regulates restrictions on expression, not restrictions created with the intention to restrict expression. If restriction itself does not restrict expression it will not be regulated by this resolution.
As long as law itself does not restrict expression it is not regulated by this resolution.
The clause is only relevant to how nations treat the cited restrictions, not any other ridiculous law a nation could possibly pass.
Exactly. If citizen is a lawbreaker it is legal to abuse cited restrictions against him.
Hr'rrm.
Of course, national governments would still be free to abuse these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding non-citizens...
Of course! This resolution is a BLOCKER.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

I already answered on this:

As long as law itself does not restrict expression it is not regulated by this resolution.

Exactly. If citizen is a lawbreaker it is legal to abuse cited restrictions against him.

Of course! This resolution is a BLOCKER.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

But if the law is intended to force a situation where all citizens are lawbreakers in order to abuse cited restrictions, I would see it as non-compliance, whether or not the law restricts expression.

But if the law is intended to force a situation where all citizens are lawbreakers in order to abuse cited restrictions, I would see it as non-compliance, whether or not the law restricts expression.
Resolution does not state that laws will be judged for intentions of creators of these laws. Governments that prefer to limit the freedom of speech will use this loophole actively.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Resolution does not state that laws will be evaluated on the criteria of intentions of creators of these laws. Governments that prefer to limit the freedom of speech will use this loophole actively.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

Okay, what part of 'my interpretation' and 'I would see it', etc, do you not seem to understand. You're interpreting it one way. I'm interpreting it another. Stop trying to convince me that you're viewpoint is the only right one.

Before you accuse me of doing the same, I've only been pointing out where I would see it differently.

Paula Jenner

OOC: Sorry, I am slightly changed my previous post.
Okay, what part of 'my interpretation' and 'I would see it', etc, do you not seem to understand. You're interpreting it one way. I'm interpreting it another. Stop trying to convince me that you're viewpoint is the only right one.

Before you accuse me of doing the same, I've only been pointing out where I would see it differently.

Paula Jenner
IC: The problem is that when numerous interpretations are possible everyone will choose the one that is preferable to them.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

After reading the resolution up for vote, and getting great glee over how it seems to piss chowderheads off, the Palentine says, "Why the hell not!", and votes for this fine legislation.

*snip*Well, if you want to know the truth, the clause has no real meaning at all, and there's no real way to enforce it. It's just filler to appease the definition-wankers. The force of the language in the previous clause actually holds for everyone, law-abiding or not. Only "reasonable restrictions" are allowed, and only in the circumstances listed. And because the rules for WA legislation are what they are, only "reasonable restrictions" will be allowed.

Well, if you want to know the truth, the clause has no real meaning at all, and there's no real way to enforce it. It's just filler to appease the definition-wankers. The force of the language in the previous clause actually holds for everyone, law-abiding or not. Only "reasonable restrictions" are allowed, and only in the circumstances listed. And because the rules for WA legislation are what they are, only "reasonable restrictions" will be allowed.
Hmm, you are probably right. Maybe this resolution is NOT A BLOCKER after all. But I do not like its vagueness anyway. Laws must not be written in such way. Our sponsors from the WA will probably not vote for it anyway.

Sincerely yours Test Subject Number 0598418235/A

I agree. The old UN made a mistake in voting down a free expression law similar to this, and millions of individuals yearning to breathe free suffered because of it. I am glad that, thus far, the vote tally represents the willingness of the new World Assembly to learn from that mistake, not repeat it.

No answer having been forthcoming, I'll ask again: do you believe enforcement of trademark law is an egregious violation of free speech that the World Assembly has left the world poorer for permitting?

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

Sorry for not be "forthcoming" within an acceptable time frame. I'll try to reply faster next time.
After an exhaustive re-read, I've concluded (from my point of view), that since the WA sets the standard with the legislation and "Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression" and in either case, infractions are unenforceable, that the document has no purpose. Like proclaiming a "National Cake Eating Day". It's easy to do when there are no consequences and, if you're not willing or able to go to war with another country to enforce the law, just as pointless.

I am curious about the reference to the "old UN" free expression laws that didn't pass. What are you referring to?

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

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

We consider bad manners to be an incitement to widespread lawlessness and disorder. Would this resolution permit us to continue making them illegal?

You seem to have missed a key word in the cited clause, namely "reasonable."

You seem to have missed a key word in the cited clause, namely "reasonable."

[The Kawaiian Nuncia turns to her First Secretary and says, "I don't get it...I thought we were being reasonable?"]

The Republic Of Corporatist Capitalism is planning on leaving the WA as this resolution will inevitably be passed.
I hope you're happy!Quite happy, I ran out of staples yesterday, since you're leaving I can take yours.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Quite happy, I ran out of staples yesterday, since you're leaving I can take yours.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
"I thought that, although staplers are considered fair game, the actual staples were considered to be a perk of the Gnomes' employment here?"

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Please, if you want to babble about office supplies, do it in your own thread.

"I thought that, although staplers are considered fair game, the actual staples were considered to be a perk of the Gnomes' employment here?"

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

No, the Gnomes have the right of first refusal on the paper clips.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It's through! Omigodtheykilledkenny takes the lead in the WA league.

Hmm..turns out this freedom stuff isn't so bad... I have been a mostly benevolent dictator so most of the new dissent is that I have not made enough public appearances << >> Cept that one guy..but he was OBVIOUSLY a spy.

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench congratulates the revered and esteemed delegation of Omigodtheykilledkenny on their excellent victory.


May the horde of the Kennyites ride swift across the plain for all time.


Yours sincerely,

Could we get a Doctor in here?Sorry... been busy with the holidays. What'd I miss?


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

This thread need to be un-stickied and renamed "PASSED: Freedom of Expression [Official Topic].