NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNIZING that freedom of speech is not supported in all countries and that the right of all countries to rule the way they feel best fit in their current political climate is essential.

NOTING that the definition of defamation infringes more rights than it protects.

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #30 bans things considered trivial in a great deal of nations, such as the publication of tabloid newspapers and joke books. In addition to that, this resolution also bans all forms of pornography in media, due to the fact that the term “offensive pornography” was never defined by this body.

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #30 is overriding all laws passed at a national level regarding the banning of certain freedoms of expression. Such freedoms that are preserved through Resolution #30 include the right to participate in cannibalism and the right to participate in grave desecration. In addition to this, it states that all member states are expected to conform to the same views on certain civil rights issues therefore infringing on the rights of each state to make their own decisions on these issues.

The member nations of the World Assembly hereby repeal Resolution #30: “Freedom of Expression.”

Co-authored by the Citizens of Imperial Britain

We like the sentiment and would support some form of a repeal, but in your opening statement "RECOGNIZING that freedom of speech is not supported in all countries and that the right of all countries to rule the way they feel best fit in their current political climate is essential"; we are concerned.

We opposed this resolution when it was at vote, but we ultimately voted for it b/c ppl need to be able to at least express their thoughts, opinions, etc without fear of retribution. Also we agree with your concerns of right infringments, porn, etc.

If you can get it to where it shows we will be better without this law on the books rather than with it, you'll have our vote as of now we aren't convinved. If you can get this repeal going, what would you suggest to replace it with should you get this passed?

Question.
Co-authored by the Citizens of Imperial Britain
Does the Imperial Britain mentioned in the above quoted section refer to the region (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=Imperial%20Britain) by that name? If it does, your proposal is illegal and you'll need to go back and read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) (particularly the section about branding) before trying again.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It doesn't ban such things, it merely permits nations to ban them. You don't have to ban pornography if you don't want to; we in Quintessence of Dust haven't. And the restrictions are sufficiently broad to allow you to ban grave desecration. This repeal is a fiction; sort out your own laws, don't rely on the WA to do it for you.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria