NationStates Jolt Archive

I propose to the delegations of the World Assembly the following skeleton draft. As this is the initial version, I do expect many delegations to see it as unacceptable, and fully welcome their thoughtful critique.

The aim of this proposal is to promote independent thinking, by restricting governments from limiting analytical resources, or intentionally shaping the thoughts of its citizens.

Revision #4:
ADHERING to the idea that all persons should be allowed to address concerns, without the infringing of their thoughts by national, international, or any other external forces,

The World Assembly shall thus:

I) ESTABLISH the unalienable right of informed thought, which is extended to all individuals in each World Assembly member nation, under the definition and limits of this resolution.

II) DEFINES the right of informed thought as the right to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

III) MANDATES that World Assembly member nations disclose information to residents upon request, so long as such information does not pose a significant threat to the welfare of populations. World Assembly member nations are permitted to partially disclose valid information, under the strict mandate that the disclosure contains at least eighty-five percent of the original information's content, which sufficiently fulfills the original request. In the absence of government information, World Assembly member nations must provide other means of access to information.

IV) LIMITS the access of information per Article III to that which does not:
i) put persons in undue danger,
ii) violate existing national and international laws regarding classified intelligence,
iii) break existing national privacy laws,
iv) cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons in public, in private, or in the workplace.

V) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicle of propaganda, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.
a) DEFINING propaganda as false or misleading information spread in order to influence the attitudes and behavior of a person in favor of a government or a cause.

VI) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors, in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions.


Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Opposed!

Might be treading on the toes of dictator nations with that one, mate.

FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicles of censorship, propaganda, and socialization, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.

Banning socialization!? Sorry if I'm overreacting, but thats banning any learning process that your parents can give...we'd all be thoughtless beings without any ability to communicate without socialization... and if you meant resocialization, thats banning rehabilitation in prisons..ect.

I know what you're going, with war propaganda, but the wording with socialization needs work...because if you take it literally...well, it would really fuck up society, thats for sure.

IV) MANDATES that World Assembly member nations disclose information to residents upon request, so long as such information does not pose a significant threat to the welfare of populations. World Assembly member nations are permitted to partially disclose valid information, under the strict mandate that the disclosure contains at least eighty-five percent of the original information's content.
This is tricky. How do you measure a percentage of information? Do you take all the information on the subject topic by words? What if the citizen poses a question about water: is the state supposed to magically provide 85% of all existing information about water?

I believe that the right to information is best addressed in a separate resolution.

V) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicles of censorship, propaganda, and socialization, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.
Propaganda is tricky over here, unless defined. Wikipedia defines propaganda as: "Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people." If we use this definition, civics classes condemning racism are propaganda, and also encourage conformity of thought--->this resolution would make them illegal.

Puchi supports including the definition of propaganda as "false or misleading information spread in order to influence...", which would deem this concern moot.


VI) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors, in favor of those which benefit any nation, politically, militarily, or culturally.
I resort to the racial argument once more, lessening racism will (from the viewpoint of The Free Land of Puchi) benefit the nation: is educating and encouraging people to be colour-bling instilling certain attitudes and beliefs? Yes. This resolution would make that illegal.

The land of Puchi will gladly support extending free thought, and is in favour of the resolution, provided the necessary changes are made.

We are absolutely opposed to this statute. Thought cannot be legislated for in this way and it is absurd that the w.a. would now begin to tell its citizenry how to think . We are half incredulous and half dismayed but what this law ( if such it may be called ) is attempting to do.


We should point out that we are absolutely in favour of free thinking, but we are opposed to the doctrine of "Free Thought" which is being promoted by this resolution.


Your e.t.c. ,

i must say that i agree with my friend from Urgench,

i mean, legislating on freedom of thought. that's really tricky and could have unintended consequences. i must reference another ambassador who mentioned racism:

we teach our children that racism and all kinds of prejudices are bad. therefore under this resolution we are teaching them a train of thought. and therefore illegal if this passes.

also, in other nations they may teach that racism is good and right. therefore, who are we (you, I, Urgench, and all other ambassadors) to say what is indoctrinating and what is not?

to me, something may be considered indoctrination, wihle to someone else my education is indoctrination.

but more to the point:

your basically saying that anything or one: institution, person, commercial...etc that tries to inform someone of something is indoctrinating them because it is teaching them how to think in one way or another.

my parents talk me to think the way i think. therefore they are indoctrinating me? will this bill force nations to arrest parents who teach their children to be good (or bad?)

such a bill, would have to go into so much detail (so as to not have unintended consequences) that i would personally feel that the WA would be mingling into nation's affairs and rights far too much. the only way this proposal could work effectively is going into minute detail which would lead to obscene amount of control over states (something i hate).

and if left with out detail, little detail, or too broad a surface to cover, it allows for corruption, bending of the resolution to serve nation's means, and unintended consequences. it just doesn't seem realistic. for now i'm opposed, however, i'll tune in a while from now and see the progress though i still don't think i could ever support such a bill though i am not ardently against it since it's still in it's infancy.

Wachichi

This seems like two separate resolutions stapled together: a "freedom of information" sort of resolution (articles II and IV) and a "freedom from mind control/forced propaganda" resolution (articles V and VI). They should either be treated in separate resolutions or melded together more logically.

On top of this, article III has very different meanings depending on whether you apply it to the "freedom of information" portion or the "freedom from mind control" portion. If applied to the former, it is a logical limitation preventing the leaking of dangerous state secrets, etc. If applied to the latter, it is a dangerous limitation on thought that requires ridiculous psychic powers and would do more harm to free thought than good.

Might be treading on the toes of dictator nations with that one, mate.Essentially, that's the idea. Before accusations of illegality are flung around, it should be noted that no ideology is banned, just two practices that some ideologies may or may not exploit (the operative points italicized).

Banning socialization!? Sorry if I'm overreacting, but thats banning any learning process that your parents can give...we'd all be thoughtless beings without any ability to communicate without socialization... and if you meant resocialization, thats banning rehabilitation in prisons..ect.

I know what you're going, with war propaganda, but the wording with socialization needs work...because if you take it literally...well, it would really fuck up society, thats for sure.Parent's aren't forced to do anything, or banned from doing anything, in the current version, Ambassador. Perhaps I could make this clearer by using "World Assembly member nation governments". My goal is to prevent governments from socializing their people in a way that forces conformity of thought, not to prevent cultures from teaching their ways of life.

This is tricky. How do you measure a percentage of information? Do you take all the information on the subject topic by words? What if the citizen poses a question about water: is the state supposed to magically provide 85% of all existing information about water?

I believe that the right to information is best addressed in a separate resolution.The measure of the percentage of the information is based on the media the information is given: if it text, then eighty-five percent of the text; video, then eighty-five percent of the video, and so on. Although, governments are free to release one hundred percent, or, if it contradicts laws regarding classified intelligence, or poses a threat to the welfare of populations, zero percent.

In regard to broad topics, the state is not the sole repository of information, I might remind you. Should somebody ask the state about water (which is an unrealistic hypothetical), the state can point it's collective finger to the local library.

Propaganda is tricky over here, unless defined. Wikipedia defines propaganda as: "Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people." If we use this definition, civics classes condemning racism are propaganda, and also encourage conformity of thought--->this resolution would make them illegal.

Puchi supports including the definition of propaganda as "false or misleading information spread in order to influence...", which would deem this concern moot.A definition could easily be provided. I did not write definitions for the terms, in the hopes that representatives would proposed their own, leading to a resolution that encompasses the ideas of all delegations participating.

I resort to the racial argument once more, lessening racism will (from the viewpoint of The Free Land of Puchi) benefit the nation: is educating and encouraging people to be colour-blind instilling certain attitudes and beliefs? Yes. This resolution would make that illegal.

The land of Puchi will gladly support extending free thought, and is in favour of the resolution, provided the necessary changes are made.

Article IV is actually the very definition of brain-washing. When the definition is used, the connotation is non-existent. However, when the term is used, the connotation is almost universally malevolent. Saying "FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from malevolently instilling in a person..." almost achieves the correct connotation. "... in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions" might be a better choice.

We are absolutely opposed to this statute. Thought cannot be legislated for in this way and it is absurd that the w.a. would now begin to tell its citizenry how to think . We are half incredulous and half dismayed but what this law ( if such it may be called ) is attempting to do.


We should point out that we are absolutely in favour of free thinking, but we are opposed to the doctrine of "Free Thought" which is being promoted by this resolution.


Your e.t.c. ,

You misunderstand what the proposal does, Ambassador Mongkha. Thought itself is not be legislated, nor mandated, by this proposal. To suggest that the proposal tells people how to think is utterly ridiculous, and makes me question if you didn't just skim over it, for the sole fact that the very first line says that "persons should be allowed to address concerns, without the infringing of their thoughts by ... external forces".

such a bill, would have to go into so much detail (so as to not have unintended consequences) that i would personally feel that the WA would be mingling into nation's affairs and rights far too much. the only way this proposal could work effectively is going into minute detail which would lead to obscene amount of control over states (something i hate).The Freedom of Expression resolution has already touched on the concept that this proposal addresses. What that resolution didn't do, however, is protect a person's right to reach a conclusion, in which they have the right to express. I don't consider protecting this right to be an impossible feat, and my thoughts of breaching national sovereignty are far from worried. Furthermore, minute details are not needed, as the proposal addresses a rather broad topic: thinking, and your right to do so independently.

and if left with out detail, little detail, or too broad a surface to cover, it allows for corruption, bending of the resolution to serve nation's means, and unintended consequences. it just doesn't seem realistic.Allowing nations to shape the thoughts of their people allows for far greater corruption than any proposal on the issue would allow.

Also, I'm interested in knowing how the nation of Wachichi voted in regards to the Freedom of Expression resolution. I'd assume, based on your comments, Ambassador, that you thought protecting the right of people to speak freely wasn't realistic, either. It was done, however, and with a 76.4% majority vote to boot.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I must say! Opposed! Are we not free to control our citizens' lives?

In regard to broad topics, the state is not the sole repository of information, I might remind you.
I know you'll find this hard to believe, and probably scoff at it, but in Aundotutunagir the State is the sole repository of information. As it should be.

Should somebody ask the state about water (which is an unrealistic hypothetical), the state can point it's collective finger to the local library.
Which in Aundotutunagir is an organ of the State...

Note that I never accused it of being illegal (which as far as I can see it isn't), but I was saying that I doubted the dictators would like it very much. ;)

Parent's aren't forced to do anything, or banned from doing anything, in the current version, Ambassador. Perhaps I could make this clearer by using "World Assembly member nation governments". My goal is to prevent governments from socializing their people in a way that forces conformity of thought, not to prevent cultures from teaching their ways of life.

Ending conformity of thought or as you put it, "socialization", would lead the disintegration of cultures and society. Most cultures stem from the government, and how it governs them. You must understand socialization is a very broad term that includes primary, secondary, developmental and resocialization agents...all of which are influenced by the government. Have you ever seen a parent with their children stare (and maybe even laugh) at a handicapped person or someone of a different racial background. Thats socialization that your proposal's banning, its influenced by the government, social equality and welfare make a big difference in the opinion and the actions of that parent.
But I only used the "negative" example of socialization I could think of, I can only imagine what else this proposal bans, religion comes to mind.

"This granting of an absolute right would seem to over-ride contractural obligations: As currently written, it would give anybody who was supposed to be doing (and was being paid to do) a job the right to stop and contemplate whatever they want without their employers having any legal recourse... unless that inaction would actually 'cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons'...
Also, without considering its effects on dictatorships, I rather think that it would effectively ban Theocracies and would therefore be illegal for that reason."


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.

You misunderstand what the proposal does, Ambassador Mongkha. Thought itself is not be legislated, nor mandated, by this proposal. To suggest that the proposal tells people how to think is utterly ridiculous, and makes me question if you didn't just skim over it, for the sole fact that the very first line says that "persons should be allowed to address concerns, without the infringing of their thoughts by ... external forces".

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes


And then the statute goes on to outline what kinds of thought are not acceptable!

We read the statute carefully and we were horrified by it. What and how people think cannot be ordered by fiat. Free thinking is exactly that- Free it cannot be encouraged by an international organisation and this resolution could never hope to be subtle enough or broad enough to encompass the full gamut of human thought.

If thinking is to be free then those who think freely must be allowed to choose to think in directed and controlled ways if they desire to do so. They must also be allowed to think in ways which may harm the state or even in ways which are harmful in a more general sense or no freedom of thought will exist.

Again we cannot understand the arrogance of the Glen Rhodes delegation if it thinks it can legislate for free thinking across thousands of societies and hundreds perhaps thousands of cultures and for billions of people when it seems to think that free thought is essentially to think in the way the Glen Rhodes finds acceptable.


Yours e.t.c. ,

It is a rather tricky resolution and I cannot support it in its current form. Furthermore there is a similar resolution of Freedom of Expression already on the book so that would be repeating what the WA already declared.

This seems like two separate resolutions stapled together: a "freedom of information" sort of resolution (articles II and IV) and a "freedom from mind control/forced propaganda" resolution (articles V and VI). They should either be treated in separate resolutions or melded together more logically.There's no need for dissections, Ambassador. Having access to information, and not being brainwashed in to thinking that contradicts with your own, are both neccessities in being able to "critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other idea".

"This granting of an absolute right would seem to over-ride contractural obligations: As currently written, it would give anybody who was supposed to be doing (and was being paid to do) a job the right to stop and contemplate whatever they want without their employers having any legal recourse... unless that inaction would actually 'cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons'...
Also, without considering its effects on dictatorships, I rather think that it would effectively ban Theocracies and would therefore be illegal for that reason."


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.

The first concern is somewhat valid, and should probably be addressed. The second concern -- that this proposal would ban theocracies -- isn't valid at all. I give the Freedom of Expression resolution as precedence; surely, allowing people to express themselves freely is contradictory to many dictatorial goals. However, dictatorships are not banned, so no violation has occurred. The same applies here: while the freedom to analyze might infringe on a theocracy's goal of blind faith, theocracies are not banned; therefor, no violation as occurred.

And then the statute goes on to outline what kinds of thought are not acceptable!This is where you misunderstand the proposal, Ambassador Mongkha. Article III limits the physical practice of "critically examining, analyzing, and otherwise thoroughly investigating" issues to those which to do not cause harm to others, etc. Merely thinking does no harm, breaks no law, doesn't infringe on privacy, or cause undue disruption to daily life, because all those things are physical activities, whereas thinking is a mental activity.

I'm astounded by the delegation of Urgench's speedy proclamation that Glen-Rhodes is trying to take over the world. It's obvious that there's a raised level of antipathy between our two delegations (though, the problem is, again, with your Princess, and not with you, Mongkha). But, one should try and act diplomatically, anyways. Furthermore, it was mentioned that this was a skeleton draft; I have brought this up to debate, purposefully leaving it at an unfinished level. If we were in the final stages of the debate, then perhaps your reaction might be justified. However, this is the beginning, and only your second response, and accusations that Glen-Rhodes has ulterior motives are already being thrown in. It's a shame.

It is a rather tricky resolution and I cannot support it in its current form. Furthermore there is a similar resolution of Freedom of Expression already on the book so that would be repeating what the WA already declared.I am aware that Freedom of Expression treads the same waters that this proposal does. However, Freedom of Expression deals with the right of a person to express their thoughts on an idea, whereas Freedom of Independent Thought deals with the right of a person to be able to reach a conclusion on an idea. In other words, Freedom of Expression gives a person the right to publish a critical essay on their leader, but doesn't give that person the right to research the points in the essay. Essentially, Freedom of Independent Thought would be a prequel to Freedom of Expression.

ADHERING to the idea that all persons should be allowed to address concerns, without the infringing of their thoughts by national, international, or any other external forces,

The World Assembly shall thus:

I) ESTABLISH the unalienable right of independent thought, which is extended to all individuals in each World Assembly member nation, under the definition and limits of this resolution.

II) DEFINES the right of independent thought as the right to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

III) LIMITS the exercising of the right of independent thought to that which does not:
a) put persons in undue danger,
b) violate existing national and international laws regarding classified intelligence,
c) infringe on the privacy of other persons,
d) cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons in public, in private, or in the workplace.

IV) MANDATES that World Assembly member nations disclose information to residents upon request, so long as such information does not pose a significant threat to the welfare of populations. World Assembly member nations are permitted to partially disclose valid information, under the strict mandate that the disclosure contains at least eighty-five percent of the original information's content.

V) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicles of censorship and propaganda, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.
a) DEFINING censorship as blocking ideas, through the medias, that are critical of a cause.
b) DEFINING propaganda as false or misleading information spread in order to influence the attitudes and behavior of a person, in favor of a government or a cause.

VI) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors, in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Article III limits the physical practice of "critically examining, analyzing, and otherwise thoroughly investigating" issues to those which to do not cause harm to others, etc. Merely thinking does no harm, breaks no law, doesn't infringe on privacy, or cause undue disruption to daily life, because all those things are physical activities, whereas thinking is a mental activity.

Your point is valid, Dr. Castro, but I understand the initial misunderstanding. It might be the wording: "the right of independent thought" sounds like it is referring to what goes on inside an individual's head, despite what the Article II definition is; and that would make Article III abominable.

I suggest a reordering of the articles and a slight rewording. Try this: now-article III goes after now-article IV, and the wording changed to "III) LIMITS the exercising of the rights from article III ((that's now-article IV)) to that which does not...". After all, does now-article III refer to any other portion of the resolution than now-article IV?

Perhaps the most logical thing would be to take now-article III and turn it into clauses of now-article IV.

I suggest a reordering of the articles and a slight rewording. Try this: now-article III goes after now-article IV, and the wording changed to "III) LIMITS the exercising of the rights from article III ((that's now-article IV)) to that which does not...". After all, does now-article III refer to any other portion of the resolution than now-article IV?You're correct saying that Article III refers to Article IV. Moving them around does seem more logical.

ADHERING to the idea that all persons should be allowed to address concerns, without the infringing of their thoughts by national, international, or any other external forces,

The World Assembly shall thus:

I) ESTABLISH the unalienable right of independent thought, which is extended to all individuals in each World Assembly member nation, under the definition and limits of this resolution.

II) DEFINES the right of independent thought as the right to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

III) MANDATES that World Assembly member nations disclose information to residents upon request, so long as such information does not pose a significant threat to the welfare of populations. World Assembly member nations are permitted to partially disclose valid information, under the strict mandate that the disclosure contains at least eighty-five percent of the original information's content. In the absence of government information, World Assembly member nations must provide other means of access to information.
a) LIMITS the access of this information to that which does not:
i) put persons in undue danger,
ii) violate existing national and international laws regarding classified intelligence,
iii) infringe on the privacy of other persons,
iv) cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons in public, in private, or in the workplace.

IV) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicles of censorship and propaganda, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.
a) DEFINING censorship as blocking ideas, through the medias, that are critical of a cause.
b) DEFINING propaganda as false or misleading information spread in order to influence the attitudes and behavior of a person, in favor of a government or a cause.

V) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors, in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions.

I'm wondering if the title doesn't quite fit the draft? Perhaps, should one be so inclined, another title could be suggested?


Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Such a broad-reaching piece of legislation as this will wreak havoc on the social systems in Snefaldia; we are a multi-ethnic federation with several autonomous and semi-autonomous territorial entities within our borders, and this resolution will raise damaging legal questions about the ability of these entities to effectively manage their areas.

Further, cultural heritage in many cases is passed on through specific rituals and educational practices, and in certain societies deviation from the community norm (what you might be termed "noncomformity" in your worldview) is unhealthy and dangerous to the harmony of the society- I'm specifically thinking of the Kawaiian ethnic groups which reside in many of the nations represented here. Furthermore, it is a cornerstone belief of our social system that the Snefaldian state is comprised entirely of the people, making it impossible to implement.

My government does not see any way this legislation can be made workable, either- under the current draft, the exemptions provided in article 3 are so broad as to allow any government to make an end-run around the whole thing, and tightening those exemptions would make the bill so prohibitively restrictive the Compliance Ministry would essentially be forcing our states to stop operating.

For benefit of public information, the States-Federation of Snefaldia believes in the freedom of expression and thought, supporting such rights with the force of law. The shared cultural heritage of the Snefaldian nation includes freedom of education and the pursuit of thought, and the Snefaldian people are opposed to the restriction of such rights in all circumstances.

However, my government does not believe that legislating in such nebulous legal areas is the solution to oppressive systems, and as such we will be opposed on philosophical, legal, and moral grounds to any attempts at passing this bill.

Nemo Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs
States-Federation of Snefaldia

I'm wondering if the title doesn't quite fit the draft? Perhaps, should one be so inclined, another title could be suggested?

Hmm...perhaps "Freedom of Discourse"? "Freedom of Information"? "Right to Informed Decision-Making"? Right of this, Freedom of that? I do not know!

This is where you misunderstand the proposal, Ambassador Mongkha. Article III limits the physical practice of "critically examining, analyzing, and otherwise thoroughly investigating" issues to those which to do not cause harm to others, etc. Merely thinking does no harm, breaks no law, doesn't infringe on privacy, or cause undue disruption to daily life, because all those things are physical activities, whereas thinking is a mental activity.

I'm astounded by the delegation of Urgench's speedy proclamation that Glen-Rhodes is trying to take over the world. It's obvious that there's a raised level of antipathy between our two delegations (though, the problem is, again, with your Princess, and not with you, Mongkha). But, one should try and act diplomatically, anyways. Furthermore, it was mentioned that this was a skeleton draft; I have brought this up to debate, purposefully leaving it at an unfinished level. If we were in the final stages of the debate, then perhaps your reaction might be justified. However, this is the beginning, and only your second response, and accusations that Glen-Rhodes has ulterior motives are already being thrown in. It's a shame.



Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes




The shame is that the respected delegation of Glen Rhodes imagines that it is the sole arbiter of what is and what is not "the right way to think" .

We are opposed to this statute because it cannot ever hope to legislate for something as ineffable as thought. We are worried further by the concept of free thinking which the respected delegation of Glen Rhodes is motivated by and whether or not it constitutes true free thinking at all.


We are not in any way moved to oppose this statute by "animosity" toward the delegation of Glen Rhodes, we take our duty to this organisation very seriously and treat its execution with the utmost professionalism. We are deeply insulted by the accusation that our national position is in fact urged by prejudices of a more trivial personal nature.

If the honoured Ambassador disagrees with our opinion of his delegation's statute then by all means he should do so but we resent absolutely the attempt to sideline and silence us with accusations that our view is coloured by our delegation's personal likes and dislikes.

We have supported the work of states who's delegations we do not normally have much in common with and have opposed the work of some of our delegation's most admired colleagues.



This statute is fundamentally wrong headed, that is why we cannot support it. It presumes to know what free thinking is when it is entirely directed by the prejudices of a type of thinking which views all other modes of thought as inferior. The very idea of a law for freedom of thought is utterly self contradictory. Thought of any kind is not the natural bailiwick of legislators and to imply that the w.a. has a right to make laws of thought is to endorse the notion that national governments have the right to control or direct the thinking of their citizens.


And as for the statutes proscriptions, we would prefer to allow our citizens the right to "physical practice" of their thoughts untill such time as we deem it fit to intervene to stop them. We do not want the w.a. to tell Urgenchis how they may or may not express the outcomes of their thoughts.



Yours e.t.c. ,

The shame is that the respected delegation of Glen Rhodes imagines that it is the sole arbiter of what is and what is not "the right way to think" .This organization functions on the process of delegations submit their ideas, and other delegations agree or disagree. Freedom of Expression would not have been written had the Kennyite delegation not thought that their way of dealing with the issue was the right way, and censorship was the wrong way. If you want to twist words, then yes, Glen-Rhodes is out to rule the world. Otherwise, you'll realize that this organization is but a facet for nations to further their ideals.

We are opposed to this statute because it cannot ever hope to legislate for something as ineffable as thought. We are worried further by the concept of free thinking which the respected delegation of Glen Rhodes is motivated by and whether or not it constitutes true free thinking at all.

...

This statute is fundamentally wrong headed, that is why we cannot support it. It presumes to know what free thinking is when it is entirely directed by the prejudices of a type of thinking which views all other modes of thought as inferior. The very idea of a law for freedom of thought is utterly self contradictory. Thought of any kind is not the natural bailiwick of legislators and to imply that the w.a. has a right to make laws of thought is to endorse the notion that national governments have the right to control or direct the thinking of their citizens.If that is why you are opposed to this proposal, then you really aren't opposed to it at all, because this proposal doesn't legislate thought. You are, again, completely misunderstanding what has been spelled out.

The goal is to protect a person's right to "critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion". In other words: this proposal is aiming to protect a person's right to think for themselves.

That is not to say, however, that this legislation's aim to promote, or mandate, the philosophical viewpoint of freethought, that you seem to keep referring to (unless, of course, you yourself do not know that you are referring to it): "individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason". While it is a viewpoint that I personally agree with, it is not something that can be legislated on. You cannot force people to think or not to think. You can only protect their right to do so independently, and provide the vehicles to do so.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Dr Castro:

I'm wondering if the title doesn't quite fit the draft? Perhaps, should one be so inclined, another title could be suggested?

The title of the resolution definitely should be changed, as well as all references to "independent thought." That term, I think, is misleading all of us. The main problem I am running into in suggesting an alternative term is that it seems to me that this is not addressing one right but a combination of rights. The best suggestion I can think of right now is "the right to independent and informed decision-making." Cumbersome, no?

Ambassador Taranton:

Such a broad-reaching piece of legislation as this will wreak havoc on the social systems in Snefaldia; we are a multi-ethnic federation with several autonomous and semi-autonomous territorial entities within our borders, and this resolution will raise damaging legal questions about the ability of these entities to effectively manage their areas.

I will be interested in seeing what the response is to your points, because you do have valid points.

Such a broad-reaching piece of legislation as this will wreak havoc on the social systems in Snefaldia; we are a multi-ethnic federation with several autonomous and semi-autonomous territorial entities within our borders, and this resolution will raise damaging legal questions about the ability of these entities to effectively manage their areas.Forgive me if this sounds undiplomatically harsh. But, if your governmental system can only reach a level of stability if the citizens of Snefaldia's territorial entities do not question the authority of said territorial entities, then a World Assembly resolution should be the least of your worries.

Further, cultural heritage in many cases is passed on through specific rituals and educational practices, and in certain societies deviation from the community norm (what you might be termed "noncomformity" in your worldview) is unhealthy and dangerous to the harmony of the society- I'm specifically thinking of the Kawaiian ethnic groups which reside in many of the nations represented here. Furthermore, it is a cornerstone belief of our social system that the Snefaldian state is comprised entirely of the people, making it impossible to implement.So, you are saying -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that I shouldn't continue on with this legislation because it would mean that oppressed peoples, who do not wish to conform to societal norms, might just actually be who they want to be, causing an inconveniencing disruption to "the harmony of the society"? I might direct you to the Freedom of Expression resolution that not only protects the right of these people to express themselves in ways outside of the societal norm, but also protects the right of governments "set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent ... widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization".

It looks to me as Snefaldia's concerns ought to be with Freedom of Expression. After all, this legislation only proposes that people be able to reach independent conclusions on things. Freedom of Expression deals with what they do with those conclusions.

For benefit of public information, the States-Federation of Snefaldia believes in the freedom of expression and thought, supporting such rights with the force of law. The shared cultural heritage of the Snefaldian nation includes freedom of education and the pursuit of thought, and the Snefaldian people are opposed to the restriction of such rights in all circumstances.

However, my government does not believe that legislating in such nebulous legal areas is the solution to oppressive systems, and as such we will be opposed on philosophical, legal, and moral grounds to any attempts at passing this bill.

Nemo Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs
States-Federation of Snefaldia
Minister Taranton, you certainly do have to power of confusion. You support the freedom to access information, and the pursuit of knowledge, but you do not support a World Assembly resolution that protects those two things, because said resolution would limit resources to those which don't incite danger? Yet, you are further opposed to it because, under this resolution, people would be able to break out of societal norms, which will incite danger? Please help me out here, because I'm certain that I misunderstand your intentions.

The title of the resolution definitely should be changed, as well as all references to "independent thought." That term, I think, is misleading all of us. The main problem I am running into in suggesting an alternative term is that it seems to me that this is not addressing one right but a combination of rights. The best suggestion I can think of right now is "the right to independent and informed decision-making." Cumbersome, no?
The rights addressed in the proposal are numbered at only two: the right to think independently, and the right to access information. "The right to independent and informed decision-making" is very cumbersome, and far too long for a resolution title. "Information and Thought Rights", perhaps, or simply "Right of Information", since information is the largest chunk here?


Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The rights addressed in the proposal are numbered at only two: the right to think independently, and the right to access information. "The right to independent and informed decision-making" is very cumbersome, and far too long for a resolution title. "Information and Thought Rights", perhaps, or simply "Right of Information", since information is the largest chunk here?

Or how about "the Right to Unbiased Information"? This covers the two types of rights we have been discussing without implying mind control and without being too cumbersome.

((OOC: whatever term you decide on, you might want to start a new thread with that in the title. The "right to independent thought" will continue to throw people off. Just link to this thread in the new thread for reference to the debate and see if you can get the thread locked by a moderator))

@ the ambassador of Glen-Rhodes,

i actually supported the Freedom of Expression act or whatever it was called because it didn't have so many tricks in it that would cause corruption. it didn't deal with propaganda which is such a broad term to use. it was much more straight forward.

We were a little concerned to find a Freedom of Information act embedded in the middle of this legislation. Fortunately the exceptions to article III are so wide that we suspect that questions would have to be phrased very carefully to prevent a determined bureaucracy from being able to deem more than 15% of the content refusable, thus voiding the entire request.

The punctuation of article IV is slightly unfortunate, in that it implies that the purpose of the article is to persuade or encourage conformance of thought.

Article V, however, is a cause of great concern to us. We would ask the honoured ambassador to expand upon it at some length; we have an inkling of its intent, but the exact wording is sufficiently confused as to leave us in some doubt as to what the law in fact would mean. Since one possible interpretation would be to ban criminal rehabilitation, the root of the Gobbannaen justice system, we would have no alternative but to object in the strongest possible terms.

I will be interested in seeing what the response is to your points, because you do have valid points.

As will I.

Forgive me if this sounds undiplomatically harsh. But, if your governmental system can only reach a level of stability if the citizens of Snefaldia's territorial entities do not question the authority of said territorial entities, then a World Assembly resolution should be the least of your worries.

The situation in our country is unique. I'm specifically referring to the legal status of the Kawaiian exile communities now residing in Snefaldian land; under federal law they are autonomous with regard to internal affairs, but are afforded the right to seat representatives in our parliament.

You also misunderstand my apprehension, as what constitutes a "government" is a difficult legal question to answer in my country. Do you mean the Federal Parliament? The Kawaiian council of elders or The Diet of the Sotahr Autonomous Territories, both of which consitute sovereign entities on land grant from the Sargedain government? Under Snefaldian law, these legal entities have the right to operate in keeping with cultural tradition, without which might mean the eradication of their cultural distinction and heritage.

For the legal theorists of my country, this is a serious problem. Glen-Rhodes may have the luxury of complete stability, but to assume that all nations have the same legal, cultural, and ethnic history and are thus immune to ill-effects is plain folly.

So, you are saying -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that I shouldn't continue on with this legislation because it would mean that oppressed peoples, who do not wish to conform to societal norms, might just actually be who they want to be, causing an inconveniencing disruption to "the harmony of the society"? I might direct you to the Freedom of Expression resolution that not only protects the right of these people to express themselves in ways outside of the societal norm, but also protects the right of governments "set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent ... widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization".

You're wrong, and you're also applying the values of your own society to a cultural group where the same rules might not apply. In certain societies, concepts like shame, purity, and communal harmony are central, while in others privacy, independence, and self-reliance are at the forefront. We do not seek the oppression of anybody, but I am suggesting that your premise is slightly flawed.

It looks to me as Snefaldia's concerns ought to be with Freedom of Expression. After all, this legislation only proposes that people be able to reach independent conclusions on things. Freedom of Expression deals with what they do with those conclusions.

Aren't people able to reach independent conclusions on things already? I certainly can come to my own conclusions on things, and I never needed a gnome to tell me I could.

It seems to me what you're looking to do is eliminate the influence the state might have over those conclusions, which a cursory review of elementary sociology and psychology would tell you is impossible- "no man is an island," etc. etc.

Minister Taranton, you certainly do have to power of confusion. You support the freedom to access information, and the pursuit of knowledge, but you do not support a World Assembly resolution that protects those two things, because said resolution would limit resources to those which don't incite danger? Yet, you are further opposed to it because, under this resolution, people would be able to break out of societal norms, which will incite danger? Please help me out here, because I'm certain that I misunderstand your intentions.

You absolutely misunderstand my comments, because at no point did I say such things will "incite danger." What I did say was that this legislation would raise damaging legal questions about state sovereignty in my country as well as questions about ethnic sovereignty; and that as a rule, my government opposes legislation that attempts to cover difficult-to-enforce abstract concepts, which either have many loopholes or are needlessly strict.

I would ask you address my concerns about Article III.

Nemo Taranton
etc.

You misunderstand what the proposal does, Ambassador Mongkha.

To suggest that the proposal tells people how to think is utterly ridiculous, and makes me question if you didn't just skim over it

There's no need for dissections, Ambassador.

The second concern -- that this proposal would ban theocracies -- isn't valid at all.

This is where you misunderstand the proposal, Ambassador Mongkha.

I'm astounded by the delegation of Urgench's speedy proclamation that Glen-Rhodes is trying to take over the world.

<snip>, and accusations that Glen-Rhodes has ulterior motives are already being thrown in. It's a shame.

If you want to twist words, then yes, Glen-Rhodes is out to rule the world.

You are, again, completely misunderstanding what has been spelled out.

Forgive me if this sounds undiplomatically harsh. But, if your governmental system can only reach a level of stability if the citizens of Snefaldia's territorial entities do not question the authority of said territorial entities, then a World Assembly resolution should be the least of your worries.

Minister Taranton, you certainly do have to power of confusion.
Insults, coupled with paranoiac ramblings about people thinking you're "out to rule the world", coupled with protestations against those of us who are too simple to understand your proposal...

It is you, ambassador, who served up this dog's breakfast of a proposal. If seasoned diplomats (including myself) are having trouble understanding what you are trying to accomplish don't you think that might indicate a problem with the proposal itself, rather than with those trying to read it?

It appears to me that you actually have two proposals here, one that deals with freedom of information and another dealing with some nebulous concept of "thought rights". I can understand (though I wouldn't support) the concept of a freedom of information proposal. I haven't a clue what you're trying to do with the "thought rights" or "right of independent thought" bit.

It appears to me that you actually have two proposals here, one that deals with freedom of information and another dealing with some nebulous concept of "thought rights". I can understand (though I wouldn't support) the concept of a freedom of information proposal. I haven't a clue what you're trying to do with the "thought rights" or "right of independent thought" bit.

This seems like two separate resolutions stapled together: a "freedom of information" sort of resolution (articles II and IV) and a "freedom from mind control/forced propaganda" resolution (articles V and VI). They should either be treated in separate resolutions or melded together more logically.

I have agreed, Ambassador! These might be better treated separately.

III) MANDATES that World Assembly member nations disclose information to residents upon request, so long as such information does not pose a significant threat to the welfare of populations. World Assembly member nations are permitted to partially disclose valid information, under the strict mandate that the disclosure contains at least eighty-five percent of the original information's content. In the absence of government information, World Assembly member nations must provide other means of access to information.
This all seems very muddy.

iii) infringe on the privacy of other persons
iv) cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons in public, in private, or in the workplace.
Ah, two problematic points. Would the release of documents regarding public officials infringe upon the privacy of "other persons"? What of a public official whose wrongdoing is exposed? Certain, such an official's daily life in the public, private, and in the workplace shall be disrupted.

IV) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicles of censorship and propaganda, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.
a) DEFINING censorship as blocking ideas, through the medias, that are critical of a cause.
Why must censorship entail blocking an idea that is "critical of a cause"? Do you not believe that the government should be bound from censorship in even small ways, excepting, of course, libel, obscenity, matters of national security, and incitement (none of which were mentioned, I might add). Furthermore, one may see libel as critical to a particular cause. What is one to do then?

V) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors
Shall we proceed to demolish kindergarten and pre-school public schools then? What of rehabilitation, or corrective detention?

, in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions.
What is the purpose of this bit of text? It does not seem to fit upon the sentence it was connected to.

The Dominion

This organization functions on the process of delegations submit their ideas, and other delegations agree or disagree. Freedom of Expression would not have been written had the Kennyite delegation not thought that their way of dealing with the issue was the right way, and censorship was the wrong way. If you want to twist words, then yes, Glen-Rhodes is out to rule the world. Otherwise, you'll realize that this organization is but a facet for nations to further their ideals.

If that is why you are opposed to this proposal, then you really aren't opposed to it at all, because this proposal doesn't legislate thought. You are, again, completely misunderstanding what has been spelled out.

The goal is to protect a person's right to "critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion". In other words: this proposal is aiming to protect a person's right to think for themselves.

That is not to say, however, that this legislation's aim to promote, or mandate, the philosophical viewpoint of freethought, that you seem to keep referring to (unless, of course, you yourself do not know that you are referring to it): "individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason". While it is a viewpoint that I personally agree with, it is not something that can be legislated on. You cannot force people to think or not to think. You can only protect their right to do so independently, and provide the vehicles to do so.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes




We have no interest in, nor have we mentioned Glen Rhodes's national ambitions so far as dominion over the world is concerned, needless to say such an eventuality is so impossibly remote that it would be fantastical for us to even speculate on it.



What we have been trying to say to you, honoured Ambassador, is that different cultures have arrived at various forms of civilisation by the uses of numerous different modes of thought.

Urgench is a land where in the mainstream of culture the individual is supreme, the individual's self determination and personal life path are deemed crucial in personality formation and this is seen as a socially enriching phenomena. However within the myriad of states which make up the W.A. there are in fact numerous civilisations and cultures which have a different view of how the individual and the collective interact.

In these cultures the individual is seen as a functioning unit within a far greater social scheme who's personal freedom is secondary to the freedom and well being of the group. Humans and indeed many other species have evolved to be social creatures who cooperate with one another for the benefit of all. This applies ( in some conceptions at least ) to the processes of thought.

In this kind of culture it is not important and in some cases it is downright dangerous if the individual person is allowed to think in an undirected and uncontrolled way. The agent of an entire society's destruction could be the rogue and selfish thoughts of a single individual, who puts there own personal thoughts and feelings, their own self-fulfillment, above that of those who have given them the means to live in peace and felicity.


These cultures surely have as much right to exist as any other do they not honoured Ambassador ?

In our opinion unless an opt-out to the provisions of this resolution is included in its text then it will still remain a directive on thought, even if that directive is " Thou shalt think as thou wishest, and expect not to have thine thoughts challenged or overturned by the thoughts of others !"

If this sort of law constitutes anything like the Glen Rhodes conception of freedom of thought then we are all the more relieved to be citizens of the C.S.K.U. Freedom of thought would be best served by a total absence of laws on thought rather than the world assembly creating more thought laws with which to encumber the lives of its citizenry.



Yours e.t.c. ,

Article V, however, is a cause of great concern to us. We would ask the honoured ambassador to expand upon it at some length; we have an inkling of its intent, but the exact wording is sufficiently confused as to leave us in some doubt as to what the law in fact would mean. Since one possible interpretation would be to ban criminal rehabilitation, the root of the Gobbannaen justice system, we would have no alternative but to object in the strongest possible terms.

Article V forbids nations from "brainwashing" their inhabitants in such a way that said inhabitants support a malevolent or belligerent cause that they would have not supported otherwise. For instance, if a government is killing their minorities in an act of cultural genocide, that government may not use the vehicles of propaganda to 'shape' the thoughts of its inhabitants, that may not think cultural genocide is all that nice, in favor of the government's actions.

You also misunderstand my apprehension, as what constitutes a "government" is a difficult legal question to answer in my country. Do you mean the Federal Parliament?It should be quite simple, really. When the World Assembly Compliance Commission goes and enacts laws, through which organizations are these laws being enacted? Those organizations would be the "governments" you seek.
For the legal theorists of my country, this is a serious problem. Glen-Rhodes may have the luxury of complete stability, but to assume that all nations have the same legal, cultural, and ethnic history and are thus immune to ill-effects is plain folly.You are right; it certainly would be plain folly. Which is why the delegation of Glen-Rhodes doesn't assume that the World Assembly is a homogeneous organization. However, we believe firmly that legal, cultural, and ethnic history does not make any nation immune from the criticisms regarding oppressing people in to conformity, or the legal actions to free these people from such oppression, should they so want. Don't mistake such words as accusations of some evil government, though. That's certainly not my intention.

Aren't people able to reach independent conclusions on things already? I certainly can come to my own conclusions on things, and I never needed a gnome to tell me I could.It depends. Does it matter to you if these conclusions are informed? Or, how about if these conclusions seem independent, but have the stain of negative governmental influence? If not, then you are absolutely correct.

I would ask you address my concerns about Article III.

Nemo Taranton
etc.
Which concern is this? The one where you state that the provisions of Article III are too broad, that they allow for easy corruption, but that tightening them would be an unacceptable breach in national sovereignty? I wasn't aware that there was a way to address this, given that you've eliminated all possible options.

Ah, two problematic points. Would the release of documents regarding public officials infringe upon the privacy of "other persons"? What of a public official whose wrongdoing is exposed? Certain, such an official's daily life in the public, private, and in the workplace shall be disrupted. It depends? Are the public lives of public officials private? Releasing of incriminating documents wouldn't be, I imagine, undue disruption. Releasing financial information of your neighbor, causing their assets to be stolen and liquidated, would certainly cause undue disruption, however.

Why must censorship entail blocking an idea that is "critical of a cause"? Do you not believe that the government should be bound from censorship in even small ways, excepting, of course, libel, obscenity, matters of national security, and incitement (none of which were mentioned, I might add). Furthermore, one may see libel as critical to a particular cause. What is one to do then?This proposal doesn't deal with the expression of thoughts. Which leads me to believe that censorship shouldn't be included in this proposal at all, as censorship deals specifically with expression.

Shall we proceed to demolish kindergarten and pre-school public schools then? What of rehabilitation, or corrective detention?Yes, if you don't include the rider clause I added specifically to prevent such things. Which answer this question:
What is the purpose of this bit of text? It does not seem to fit upon the sentence it was connected to.
What we have been trying to say to you, honoured Ambassador, is that different cultures have arrived at various forms of civilisation by the uses of numerous different modes of thought.Then why have you not said that? It doesn't matter, anyways, though.

As I have said before: this proposal does not attempt to legislate any way of thought. It merely proposes that nations not inhibit a person from informing themselves. If the delegation of Urgench still believes that the legislation is attempting to tell people how to think, as I believe you still do per your seventh paragraph, then I'm at a loss in knowing a way to continue on saying that it simply does not.

In our opinion unless an opt-out to the provisions of this resolution is included in its textWhich would be a one-way ticket to illegality, as resolutions cannot be completely optional.

ADHERING to the idea that all persons should be allowed to address concerns, without the infringing of their thoughts by national, international, or any other external forces,

The World Assembly shall thus:

I) ESTABLISH the unalienable right of informed thought, which is extended to all individuals in each World Assembly member nation, under the definition and limits of this resolution.

II) DEFINES the right of informed thought as the right to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

III) MANDATES that World Assembly member nations disclose information to residents upon request, so long as such information does not pose a significant threat to the welfare of populations. World Assembly member nations are permitted to partially disclose valid information, under the strict mandate that the disclosure contains at least eighty-five percent of the original information's content, which sufficiently fulfills the original request. In the absence of government information, World Assembly member nations must provide other means of access to information.

IV) LIMITS the access of information per Article III to that which does not:
i) put persons in undue danger,
ii) violate existing national and international laws regarding classified intelligence,
iii) break existing national privacy laws,
iv) cause undue disruption to the daily life of other persons in public, in private, or in the workplace.

V) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from using the vehicle of propaganda, in an effort to persuade or encourage conformity of thought.
a) DEFINING propaganda as false or misleading information spread in order to influence the attitudes and behavior of a person in favor of a government or a cause.

VI) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors, in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions.


Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Then why have you not said that? It doesn't matter, anyways, though.

As I have said before: this proposal does not attempt to legislate any way of thought. It merely proposes that nations not inhibit a person from informing themselves. If the delegation of Urgench still believes that the legislation is attempting to tell people how to think, as I believe you still do per your seventh paragraph, then I'm at a loss in knowing a way to continue on saying that it simply does not.

Which would be a one-way ticket to illegality, as resolutions cannot be completely optional.




Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes




Your delegation is aware that this resolution cannot be made optional, and you do not seem to care that other states have a right to defend the philosophical bases of their civilisation, and you insult and belittle our objections to your cultural imperialism.

Very well Ambassador, you will have it your way, your arrogance is supreme, you imagine that your state's intellectually impoverished idea of free thinking is in some way progressive and an improvement on the thousands of different approaches which thousands of states have developed vibrant and productive civilisations from. This is hubris beyond conception.

It would be perfectly acceptable to try to remedy a demonstrable iniquity which is the outcome of a way of thinking which does not accord with your own but it is a completely different matter to attack the foundation's of every form of thought which your delegation objects to, Dr. Castro.


You seem to believe that the only objection to your delegation's statute could be of a personal nature and that no right thinking people could object to the substance of its nature. This is self regard taken to the extreme.


We will oppose this statute vehemently and we will campaign vigorously against it using whatever means are available to us. We are forced to this since the delegation seems intent on insulting us and ignoring everything we have said.


It is clear that the delegation of Glen Rhodes is not here to work cooperatively with its international partners and is instead intent on a mission of insulting and denigrating any civilisation it cannot understand. Needless to say we are appalled.



Yours in bitter disappointment,

We will oppose this statute vehemently and we will campaign vigorously against it using whatever means are available to us. We are forced to this since the delegation seems intent on insulting us and ignoring everything we have said.


It is clear that the delegation of Glen Rhodes is not here to work cooperatively with its international partners and is instead intent on a mission of insulting and denigrating any civilisation it cannot understand. Needless to say we are appalled.



Yours in bitter disappointment,

Yeah.... whatever he said!

It depends? Are the public lives of public officials private? Releasing of incriminating documents wouldn't be, I imagine, undue disruption. Releasing financial information of your neighbor, causing their assets to be stolen and liquidated, would certainly cause undue disruption, however.
The private lives of public officials are private, I should imagine. Yet, the release of information pointing to, for example, lewd conduct would be an infringement upon their privacy. Regardless, it is now a moot point, as you have taken these concerns into account in your latest draft, which replaces "iii) infringe on the privacy of other persons" with "iii) break existing national privacy laws."

This proposal doesn't deal with the expression of thoughts. Which leads me to believe that censorship shouldn't be included in this proposal at all, as censorship deals specifically with expression.
I concur.

Yes, if you don't include the rider clause I added specifically to prevent such things. Which answer this question:
Perhaps you might reword the sentence so as to make it more understandable.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

Article V forbids nations from "brainwashing" their inhabitants in such a way that said inhabitants support a malevolent or belligerent cause that they would have not supported otherwise. For instance, if a government is killing their minorities in an act of cultural genocide, that government may not use the vehicles of propaganda to 'shape' the thoughts of its inhabitants, that may not think cultural genocide is all that nice, in favor of the government's actions.
We suspected that was the intent of the article, however we would question whether the convoluted wording achieves such a thing.

We must also express a certain disquiet. "Malevolent" involves value-judgements that we are certain will not be uniform across the World Assembly. In particular, few rulers consider themselves to be wishing ill; to borrow your example for a moment, they may consider that they are acting in an upright and proper manner in removing the threat presented by minorities. However wrong they may be, attempting to enforce this provision on them would be met with earnest (and most likely lengthy) counter-argument.

Further, "belligerent" -- while by no means involving the uneasy value-judgements that concern us above -- offer its own problems. Would not a nation attempting to recruit for its armed forces be indulging in the very definition of attempting to change the mind of an individual for belligerent purposes?

We note that our amusement at the mispunctuation of what is now Article V remains.

II) DEFINES the right of informed thought as the right to critically examine, analyze, and otherwise thoroughly investigate all problems, solutions, ideologies, doctrines, subjects, and other ideas, in the pursuit of attaining a conclusion independent of any other conclusion.

Okay, I'm going to just stop into the debate to say that this definition is actually confusing. A conclusion independent of other conclusions. What do you mean by 'other conclusions' exactly?

VI) FORBIDS World Assembly member nations from instilling in a person certain attitudes and beliefs contrary the person's current attitudes beliefs, in order to affect that person's ethic values and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors, in favor of those which benefit malevolent or belligerent government actions.

What exactly would be considered belligerent. I mean if one nation has a strong army that runs drills and another neighboring nation sees them as hostile, even if the nation isn't, who's right? Would the strong army nation be in non-compliance because they teach that the military is strong and needs young soldiers to remain strong in order to protect their lands? I believe this needs to be a little more clear.

All in all, I respect the thoughts behind this, but honestly, Rutianas doesn't approve of the WA legislating on what a government can and cannot teach their people. If you want to stop nations from being hostile, then attempt do so. But nations at war have the right to teach their people that they're doing it for the right reasons, even if those reasons are wrong to the opposition. This is treading on dangerous ground to legislate on whether or not a nation has the right to teach ethics and morality in times of war.

Paula Jenner

It would be perfectly acceptable to try to remedy a demonstrable iniquity which is the outcome of a way of thinking which does not accord with your own but it is a completely different matter to attack the foundation's of every form of thought which your delegation objects to, Dr. Castro.That is absolutely ludicrous, and the amount of drama is entirely uncalled for. These are the comments I'm referring to, when I say that the delegation of Urgench insists that Glen-Rhodes is out to take over the world. Nowhere in the debate, and nowhere in any revision of the proposal, have I -- or anyone, for that matter -- compared one way of thinking to another. Your main problem is that you refuse to understand the proposal at hand. You still, for seem reason that I cannot put my finger on, think that the proposal is trying to mandate a way of thought, when all it does is mandate that people have a right to inform themselves. What exactly does the delegation of Urgench think that this proposal is trying to mandate? Perhaps if that question was answered in a compact sentence, rather than an allegory of cultural and ethnic life, then I would be more able to respond in a way that you could understand.

From the very first reply, the delegation of Urgench has extended a hand of hostility, and severely chides the delegation of Glen-Rhodes for responding back; I am absolutely certain this behavior is a product of Glen-Rhodes refusal of diplomatic relations with the Princess of Urgench. I have seen the ways that the delegation of Urgench replies to proposals with which they severely disagree, and the level of hostility is leagues below what has been displayed here. While you are throwing out accusations that my delegation and I are uncooperative, we have been anything but that! It is only with the delegation of Urgench that we have shown a mere ounce of unwillingness to be cooperative, because the delegation of Urgench doesn't seem to understand what exactly is being proposed. If you could simply take what I say at face value -- because, at face value, it actually means what it's intended to mean -- instead of continuing on saying that we are mandating one way of thought, and are breaching cultural boundaries with the utmost lack of respect, then we could actually get somewhere in the legislative process. It reminds me of the time the Liberal Party of Glen-Rhodes introduced legislation to tax religious organizations, and the Conservative Party kept insisting that it was mandating an additional tax to religious people. The Conservative Party, too this day, still believes that it's purpose was to mandate an additional tax; yet, unsurprisingly, no additional tax has ever been placed (in fact, it's now illegal to impose discriminatory tax laws).

Furthermore, you say that we are positing that the nobody in their right mind would every object to "the nature" of this proposal. Nothing can be farther from the truth. There are many valid reasons to object to this proposal. It just so happens that the reason your delegation objects to it, is not really a reason at all, because it shares no relationship with the proposal at hand. If it was, indeed, a proposal that mandated a certain way of thinking, then your objections would be completely valid, and the delegation of Glen-Rhodes would rise in support of those objections. However, it is not, and they are not. Do not view this as an insult, but a mere observation. I would love for you to understand, so that you could actually participate. However, I'm not sure if anything I say will be seriously listened to, so I am, still, at a loss in figuring out how to formulate an example that you could understand.

Perhaps you might reword the sentence so as to make it more understandable.

Respectfully,
The Dominion
I could certainly do so. However, what, specifically, is confusing about it? Is it the syntax, the word choice?

We suspected that was the intent of the article, however we would question whether the convoluted wording achieves such a thing.

We must also express a certain disquiet. "Malevolent" involves value-judgements that we are certain will not be uniform across the World Assembly. In particular, few rulers consider themselves to be wishing ill; to borrow your example for a moment, they may consider that they are acting in an upright and proper manner in removing the threat presented by minorities. However wrong they may be, attempting to enforce this provision on them would be met with earnest (and most likely lengthy) counter-argument.

Further, "beligerent" -- while by no means involving the uneasy value-judgements that concern us above -- offer its own problems. Would not a nation attempting to recruit for its armed forces be indulging in the very definition of attempting to change the mind of an individual for beligerent purposes?

We note that our amusement at the mispunctuation of what is now Article V remains.
I note your amusements and concerns, and will attempt to rectify them when I'm in a less of a haste. I had only planned on responding to the delegation of Urgench, so I'm already ten minutes behind catching my flight back home.

Okay, I'm going to just stop into the debate to say that this definition is actually confusing. A conclusion independent of other conclusions. What do you mean by 'other conclusions' exactly?I mean conclusions other than your own. You would have the right to reach a conclusion that doesn't draw from other conclusions, if you so choose. As always, a person has the choice of whether or not they exercise any right.

I believe this needs to be a little more clear.Perhaps it does, given that you are the second person to raise the question.

All in all, I respect the thoughts behind this, but honestly, Rutianas doesn't approve of the WA legislating on what a government can and cannot teach their people. If you want to stop nations from being hostile, then attempt do so. But nations at war have the right to teach their people that they're doing it for the right reasons, even if those reasons are wrong to the opposition. This is treading on dangerous ground to legislate on whether or not a nation has the right to teach ethics and morality in times of war.

Paula JennerThere is a different between convincing people that a war effort is justified by providing false or misleading information, and convincing people that a war effort is justified by actually justifying it (as per the propaganda clause). However, I understand where your concern comes from, and I do plan on fixing the faulty wording of Article VI.


Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

It should be quite simple, really. When the World Assembly Compliance Commission goes and enacts laws, through which organizations are these laws being enacted? Those organizations would be the "governments" you seek.

Except that it's not that simple. Legal entities are not so clear cut; the careful balance of sovereignty and power can be easily thrown into disarray. I am certain that there are other nations in this Assembly which are much less secure and stable than we are. The ability of the state to manage itself through information control can mean the difference between chaos and order.

You are right; it certainly would be plain folly. Which is why the delegation of Glen-Rhodes doesn't assume that the World Assembly is a homogeneous organization. However, we believe firmly that legal, cultural, and ethnic history does not make any nation immune from the criticisms regarding oppressing people in to conformity, or the legal actions to free these people from such oppression, should they so want. Don't mistake such words as accusations of some evil government, though. That's certainly not my intention.

We are in concurrence about protecting the individual from oppression; the problem lies in the wording of your resolution- it may prevent societies from discouraging behavior contrary to the benefit of the whole. This is the crux of our argument.

It depends. Does it matter to you if these conclusions are informed? Or, how about if these conclusions seem independent, but have the stain of negative governmental influence? If not, then you are absolutely correct.

What constitutes "negative" government influence? What constitutes "positive?" As the Gobbanaean representatives have already suggested, such "evil dictators" don't usually think they're doing something bad, and in restricting access to information they are acting against "malevolent or belligerent" elements of society. How is the Compliance Ministry to make the distinction?

Which concern is this? The one where you state that the provisions of Article III are too broad, that they allow for easy corruption, but that tightening them would be an unacceptable breach in national sovereignty? I wasn't aware that there was a way to address this, given that you've eliminated all possible options.

Either one, really, I'd like to know your reasoning behind including what exemptions you did. I was also sarcastically suggesting it's a doomed effort, but that was rather snide of me. And I wasn't suggesting it's a breach of sovereignty, rather it would be so restrictive as to make impossible to enforce. It's a two-edge sword.

N.T.
etc.

There is a different between convincing people that a war effort is justified by providing false or misleading information, and convincing people that a war effort is justified by actually justifying it (as per the propaganda clause). However, I understand where your concern comes from, and I do plan on fixing the faulty wording of Article VI.

Forgive me. Replace 'teaching' with 'instilling'.

In any case, there is no real difference that I can see. Who determines 'false or misleading information'? I'm sure that to the opposition, it would be 'false and misleading information', who could then cry that the nation they are at war with is in non-compliance. In fact, both sides would likely be crying it.

Paula Jenner

What we have been trying to say to you, honoured Ambassador, is that different cultures have arrived at various forms of civilisation by the uses of numerous different modes of thought.

However within the myriad of states which make up the W.A. there are in fact numerous civilisations and cultures which have a different view of how the individual and the collective interact.

In these cultures the individual is seen as a functioning unit within a far greater social scheme who's personal freedom is secondary to the freedom and well being of the group. Humans and indeed many other species have evolved to be social creatures who cooperate with one another for the benefit of all. This applies ( in some conceptions at least ) to the processes of thought.

In this kind of culture it is not important and in some cases it is downright dangerous if the individual person is allowed to think in an undirected and uncontrolled way. The agent of an entire society's destruction could be the rogue and selfish thoughts of a single individual, who puts there own personal thoughts and feelings, their own self-fulfillment, above that of those who have given them the means to live in peace and felicity.


These cultures surely have as much right to exist as any other do they not honoured Ambassador ?

In our opinion unless an opt-out to the provisions of this resolution is included in its text then it will still remain a directive on thought, even if that directive is " Thou shalt think as thou wishest, and expect not to have thine thoughts challenged or overturned by the thoughts of others !"

If this sort of law constitutes anything like the Glen Rhodes conception of freedom of thought then we are all the more relieved to be citizens of the C.S.K.U. Freedom of thought would be best served by a total absence of laws on thought rather than the world assembly creating more thought laws with which to encumber the lives of its citizenry.



Yours e.t.c. ,





Dr. Castro insists that we have un-professional reasons for objecting to this statute, and yet we have made our objection clear in the above quoted comment we made earlier in the debate. Dr. Castro has refused to answer this objection and continues to pretend that our objection is based on some imagined slight which her Royal Highness Princess Ryabat of Tocharistan is supposed to have suffered at the hands of the Glen Rhodes delegation.

We cannot stress enough that we do not have any animosity toward the delegation of Glen Rhodes and that our objection to its resolution is purely of a philosophical nature. We will take an extremely dim view of any further insinuations of unprofessionalism on our part.



If this law is not about forcing one mode of thought on this organisation then why does it exist ?


Free thinking ( thinking which is undirected and autonomous in nature ) is as much a "way of thought" as is indoctrinated thinking and making the latter illegal will prioritise the former comparatively.



Yours e.t.c. ,

Except that it's not that simple. Legal entities are not so clear cut; the careful balance of sovereignty and power can be easily thrown into disarray. I am certain that there are other nations in this Assembly which are much less secure and stable than we are. The ability of the state to manage itself through information control can mean the difference between chaos and order.How is it not that simple? The World Assembly Compliance Commission works through national government (whatever form it may take), changing laws that are not in compliance with World Assembly resolutions. Whichever organizations, be it a single one or many, the Compliance Commission goes through, are the organizations that are qualified, at least to the World Assembly, to be governments.

The argument that governments need to control information to remain stable is not an argument I'll take with any great sympathy. Governments have already been weened off of censorship, which is possibly the largest form of 'information control'. Furthermore, is propaganda even classifiable as the control of information? Perhaps if you use a certain definition, but it would be more likely that it's classified as the manipulation of information.

We are in concurrence about protecting the individual from oppression; the problem lies in the wording of your resolution- it may prevent societies from discouraging behavior contrary to the benefit of the whole. This is the crux of our argument.The wording you are referring to is that which allows people to think how they want, correct? So, are you asking me to say "think however you want, as long as it conforms to what is deemed 'acceptable' by your society... for your own safety, of course"? That's not something I'm willing to do. This legislation does not attempt to tell society what they can and cannot deem acceptable, or if they can or cannot deem anything acceptable. It attempts, rather, to protect a person's right to defy society, and think differently.

What constitutes "negative" government influence? What constitutes "positive?" As the Gobbanaean representatives have already suggested, such "evil dictators" don't usually think they're doing something bad, and in restricting access to information they are acting against "malevolent or belligerent" elements of society. How is the Compliance Ministry to make the distinction?We could sit here all day asking whether or not genocide is negative, couldn't we?

Either one, really, I'd like to know your reasoning behind including what exemptions you did. I was also sarcastically suggesting it's a doomed effort, but that was rather snide of me. And I wasn't suggesting it's a breach of sovereignty, rather it would be so restrictive as to make impossible to enforce. It's a two-edge sword.

N.T.
etc.My reasoning in including the exemptions were to protect nations themselves. I don't want utter lawlessness, just like the Kennyite delegation did not want utter lawlessness when they created Freedom of Expression. The Freedom of Expression includes the last clause of "[f]orbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens", as a way to ensure that governments do not abuse the exemptions found in the clause above it. Something similar could, and probably will, be instituted here.

If this law is not about forcing one mode of thought on this organisation then why does it exist ?If Freedom of Expression does not exist to impose a single media of expression, then why does it exist? The answer to that question is the same answer to yours. It exists because it aims to protect a person's right to think for themselves, to inform themselves. One needs not to mandate one mode of thought (in fact, it's utterly contradictory to do so), when legislating on that right.


Free thinking ( thinking which is undirected and autonomous in nature ) is as much a "way of thought" as is indoctrinated thinking and making the latter illegal will prioritise the former comparatively.

Yours e.t.c. ,You are delving entirely too deep in to words, Ambassador, and have gotten yourself lost. "Freethinking" is a term that shouldn't be used in this debate, I believe. Freethinking is, indeed, a single philosophy of thought. However, being free to think for yourself cannot be molded in to any single philosophy, but instead applies to any philosophy you want it to apply to. The point is that you are given the choice to think for yourself, and the vehicles to inform yourself about the things that interest you.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

So what Types of state does Dr. Castro think will be most dramatically effected by the passage of this statute ?


We should point out that in this regard the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench will be one of those nations hardly effected at all since without the dead hand of legislation our people are free to make of the world what they wish using almost any sort of information they wish.


Yours e.t.c. ,

So what Types of state does Dr. Castro think will be most dramatically effected by the passage of this statute ?I would imagine that any state dependent on false or misleading propaganda, strict conformity, and total information restriction would be most dramatically affected by this legislation.

We should point out that in this regard the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench will be one of those nations hardly effected at all since without the dead hand of legislation our people are free to make of the world what they wish using almost any sort of information they wish.A fact that the delegation of Glen-Rhodes wishes to congratulate Urgench on. If only all states were similar in this effect.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I would imagine that any state dependent on false or misleading propaganda, strict conformity, and total information restriction would be most dramatically affected by this legislation.




Wouldn't this fairly describe almost all Theocracies, Right wing Dictatorships and Left wing Authoritarian regimes ?

Essentially this statute would completely undermine the very existence of such states would it not Dr Castro ?


We have no great desire to further the interests of such states but we suspect that this statute would fall foul of certain legal proscriptions on banning certain forms of government.


We also suspect that this statute would prevent w.a. inhabitants from deciding to give all responsibility for their intellectual growth to others. This would make it very difficult for people to become clergy or otherwise religiously dedicated since in many cases this involves total submission to the teachings of a faith as instilled by sages and hierophants and complete adherence to the doctrines and dogmas which religions claim are essential.

Indeed many religions believe any but their own "truths" to be heretical and pollutant, are you asking the w.a. to criminalise the basic tenets of entire religions and their adherents Dr Castro ?



Yours sincerely,

Wouldn't this fairly describe almost all Theocracies, Right wing Dictatorships and Left wing Authoritarian regimes? ... Essentially this statute would completely undermine the very existence of such states would it not Dr Castro ?If they employ those practices, it certainly would. I feel no sympathy in protecting nations that employ highly questionable, border-line illegal, practices that stifle a person's right to think for and inform themselves.
We have no great desire to further the interests of such states but we suspect that this statute would fall foul of certain legal proscriptions on banning certain forms of government.The questions of legality have already been answered with the Freedom of Expression, Prevention of Torture, Fair Criminal Trial, Freedom of Marriage Act, Sexual Privacy Act, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, Freedom of Assembly resolutions, and to a certain point the Living Wage Act. As well, several current drafts -- "An Anti-discrimination Resolution", "A resolution on conscientious objection", "Universal Education Act", among them -- answer the question of legality. Whereas a resolution might undermine a characteristic, or certain characteristics, of an ideology, the affected ideologies are not prevented from existing (read: banned), so no Ideological Ban violation has been constituted.

We also suspect that this statute would prevent w.a. inhabitants from deciding to give all responsibility for their intellectual growth to others. This would make it very difficult for people to become clergy or otherwise religiously dedicated since in many cases this involves total submission to the teachings of a faith as instilled by sages and hierophants and complete adherence to the doctrines and dogmas which religions claim are essential.

Indeed many religions believe any but their own "truths" to be heretical and pollutant, are you asking the w.a. to criminalise the basic tenets of entire religions and their adherents Dr Castro?Rights and freedoms are inherently optional to the individual that receives them. While I have the freedom to express myself, I am not required to do so. In that same manner, while I would have the freedom to think independently, I would not have to exercise it, and could choose to conform.

You may be speaking of the legality of theocracies to use propaganda. While I could make this more clear in the legislation itself, opinions cannot be false. However, they can be misleading. An opinion cannot be paraded around as an absolute fact; that would be misleading. While theocracies are free to say "homosexuality is wrong" without backing up the claim, to say "homosexuals have a 100% chance of contracting sexually-transmitted diseases", the theocracy would have to cite their sources.

P.S.
Forgive me for using the typical theocracy vs. homosexuals example. I'm aware that not all theocracies are homophobic, but it's the most clear example that I'm able to give.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

If they employ those practices, it certainly would. I feel no sympathy in protecting nations that employ highly questionable, border-line illegal, practices that stifle a person's right to think for and inform themselves.

Look, we can shout back and forth about stifling thought and community rights, and I doubt I'm going to convince you of my position, so for the moment let's focus on actual "evil" governments seeking to control the minds of their people. For the sake of discussion, let's reconsider my suggestion that this resolution can either be too broadly exempted or too closely restricted.

What would constitute "illegal" practices if this resolution were to pass as written; and what's to stop ill-favored governments from exploiting the exemptions against the spirit of the law? The state may claim, legally, their public information efforts are necessary for the complete safety of the people. What guarantees are there that there will be no abuse of the system?

Rights and freedoms are inherently optional to the individual that receives them. While I have the freedom to express myself, I am not required to do so. In that same manner, while I would have the freedom to think independently, I would not have to exercise it, and could choose to conform.

The Snefaldian government will immediately begin drafting a law requiring all citizens to think independently all the time. Legal ramifications for not doing so will be jail time.

Now, my question to you would be- if your resolution were passed, would such a law be illegal? We're going to require that people speak their minds! You'll be taxed if you don't!

N.T.
etc.

We have made the argument about statutes banning only practices of Theocracies and not their existence, and forcefully, on a number of occasions. It is a strange experience to have to argue against them.

However we cannot see how most theocratic governments could exist without indoctrination of some kind and it seems to us to be beyond merely banning a practice of a Theocracy to prevent them from enforcing religious dogma as law which essentially the root of their existence.


In any event agreement between us on this point is doubtless impossible.

We do however take your point about the inherent optionality of a right, however if the state of being which one would consent to if one did not exercise one's right to the contrary cannot exist by law then we fail to see how this would really allow true freedom.

You use the term Propaganda a lot Dr Castro, and you use it as though propaganda can be at all times differentiated from truth or as if it is synonymous with absolute deceit. This is practically never the case however, since propaganda is only ever effective if it uses facts to accomplish ends which these facts do not accomplish of their own accord, ends which are useful to those using and creating the propaganda of course. We do not see a very great difference between propaganda and the kinds of public information notices which governments use to prevent public panic during national emergencies.


Governments frequently make the decision that the truth would be damaging to society ( and frequently they are right ) and instead will allow a partial or distorted truth to become public knowledge would this be legal if this statute passed Dr Castro ?



Yours sincerely,

It is interesting to note that, for the purposes of this resolution, the "Right of Informed Thought" defined in Article II, outlines a right for individuals; however, the remaining articles are only restrictions on what the government may or may not do. That means that in spite of this being a right conferred on the individual, it could still be taken from them by a non-goverment religion, an advertising agency, or any other group that is unaffiliated with the government, because they have no restrictions outlined in this resolution.