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.”

-----

Let's try this again. Sorry about the violation of branding last time. :$

Okay, fourth paragraph first: By joining the WA, you agree to give up a degree of National Sovereignty. Tai Lao is usually against it to a degree, unless in the issue of individuals rights, like presented in Resolution #30. While I will give you the grave desecration, you would still be able to crack down on cannibalism because it is murder, it doesnt over-ride those laws.

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.Denying freedom of speech does not help a nation rule, it just ensures that those in power stay in power, even if they are not doing a good job of it. Also, again, we see the rights of individuals over-rule the rights of nations.

NOTING that the definition of defamation infringes more rights than it protects.You will have to explain this one, as we dont see how it does infringe rights.

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.I could kind of see this applying to tabloids, at least in the defamation aspect, but you are clutching at straws when it comes to joke books. If anything, this would support joke books as they are a form of expression. Lastly, onto the banning of offensive pornography. You are really clutching at straws here. We urge you to re-read that section of the resolution. Actually, nay, we will post it here for you:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials; See that bolded. For someone arguing about nations rights for, it seems kinda odd that you missed it. This resolution allows for nations to set the restrictions, not the WA, so your argument about it banning all pornography has just been thrown out of the window.

Sorry, but no, you will have to try better.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

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

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

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

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

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

The definition of defamation bans all knowingly false information. Like I say in a later portion of the proposal, this includes tabloids and joke books. Honestly, a child would be doing something illegal if they lied to parents about anything. And then, people can argue that withholding information is the same as lieing. If withholding information is akin to lieing, than if you withhold information, you are a criminal under this law. The possibilities are endless.

You say I'm grasping at straws with joke books. Most jokes are knowingly false for the sake of humor. To explain this, I went to a website for kids' jokes. Unfortunately, they're all really bad. This is purely for an example.

Q: Why did the bacon laugh?
A: Because the egg cracked a yolk!

A child who said that would be doing something illegal, because that is false information. Bacon doesn't laugh.

And of course, as to your point of those restrictions being possible, not definite. If restrictions of an entire form of expression is possible, this resolution has failed. It is best either way to repeal this, and then submit a proposal that is better. In my proposal, I simply meant that they could ban pornography altogether, so this resolution failed miserably at protecting the rights of the people in that sense.

This resolution does not protect many rights of expression that must be protected. In fact, it upholds a nation's right to ban pornography. It follows a trend of not actually upholding a lot of freedom of expression, but allowing nations to ban it. Therefore, it should be repealed.

The definition of defamation bans all knowingly false information. Like I say in a later portion of the proposal, this includes tabloids and joke books. Honestly, a child would be doing something illegal if they lied to parents about anything. And then, people can argue that withholding information is the same as lieing. If withholding information is akin to lieing, than if you withhold information, you are a criminal under this law. The possibilities are endless.

You say I'm grasping at straws with joke books. Most jokes are knowingly false for the sake of humor. To explain this, I went to a website for kids' jokes. Unfortunately, they're all really bad. This is purely for an example.

Q: Why did the bacon laugh?
A: Because the egg cracked a yolk!

A child who said that would be doing something illegal, because that is false information. Bacon doesn't laugh.

And of course, as to your point of those restrictions being possible, not definite. If restrictions of an entire form of expression is possible, this resolution has failed. It is best either way to repeal this, and then submit a proposal that is better. In my proposal, I simply meant that they could ban pornography altogether, so this resolution failed miserably at protecting the rights of the people in that sense.

This resolution does not protect many rights of expression that must be protected. In fact, it upholds a nation's right to ban pornography. It follows a trend of not actually upholding a lot of freedom of expression, but allowing nations to ban it. Therefore, it should be repealed.

You are grasping at straws.

Let's take a closer look at the definition of defamation from the proposal shall we?

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

Now, let me point out one very important clause in there....


in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Do you see that? So, joke books? Not even close to being illegal. They don't qualify.

Now, lets look at something else from the proposal...


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

Honestly, how reasonable would it be to tell a kid that they can't tell jokes? Or that a joke book can't be written in order to entertain and amuse the people? Not very reasonable. The key word in that is reasonable.

This proposal is very well written. It would take a much stronger, far more organised, and logical argument to repeal it.

Paula Jenner

First off, we thank ambassador Paula Jenner for putting in the argument about the definition of defamation. That is along the lines of how we were going to reply, but you beat us to the punch. Essentially, you are basing your argument on one section where the whole paragraph needs to be taken into account. Straw clutching indeed.

Secondly, as ambassador Jenner pointed out, you failed to touch on the word reasonable. Then again, it is reasonable in a theocracy or highly religious nation to ban pornography if it goes against their belief. But then again, the way you put it in your argument would allow for top secret documents to be published for public view, writers, artists and musicians to lose money that would be protected by copyright laws, and a classroom of students to hand in the same paper for an assignment, which the school can't do anything about because of not being able to enforce plagiarism. This isnt accounting for all the hate-crimes that would go unpunished...

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Reasonable is an opinion, and therefore if a country thinks joke books serve no purpose, they could ban them. Until the World Assembly better explains "reasonable restrictions," it is the job of a nation to determine what is and isn't reasonable. It may not be reasonable to you, but it could be reasonable to other countries.

Also, let's take another look at defamation.

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

A country can view that as the World Assembly allowing them to pick one of the two definitions. They can choose to pick the former. If they decide to do that, than this law protects nothing at all. It should be repealed so we can write one with less flaws.

Okay, you can stop clutching at straws now. Lets play the bolding game, shall we

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

I just bolded 2 key points. Yes, they are commas. but here is the point, and how the resolution is supposed to be read. First part:

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

Now the second:

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

The or doesnt give a choice, it actually gives 2 definitions that are concurrent, not optional.

As for your comment on reasonable being an opinion, and that nations can set that, well given that it is a WA resolution, the WA sets what is reasonable (via the WA Gnomes), and nations have to follow that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Reasonable is an opinion, and therefore if a country thinks joke books serve no purpose, they could ban them. Until the World Assembly better explains "reasonable restrictions," it is the job of a nation to determine what is and isn't reasonable. It may not be reasonable to you, but it could be reasonable to other countries.

What is reasonable? Let's look.

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

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

A nation can still pass laws that keep top secret information safe. They can pass laws that punish plagarism. They can pass laws that keep copyrights safe. They can pass laws that stop hate crimes. They can pass laws that keep medical records safe. These are all reasonable restrictions on expression.

Banning joke books? I doubt any government that is sane would see that as reasonable. Nor would the people living there. Unless the joke books are purposefully and intentionally causing defamation of character to another private citizen, joke books are harmless. Now, get off the joke books already.

Now, the line I want to look at is the last line in there.

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

So, unless a government decides to pass an impossible to follow law, then they cannot stifle free expression. Let's face it. Any government stupid enough to pass a law like that in order to ultimately stifle free expression is likely to end up with a revolution on their hands.

Paula Jenner