NationStates Jolt Archive

Issue #196

Violent Violetists Protest Artists
Government Acts
The Issue

Several musicians have recently produced songs in which "Violet" sings silly and offensive things, causing outcries of horror from the Order of Violet.
The Debate

1. "THIS IS BLASPHEMY!" shouts Jennifer Frederickson, Grand High Poobah of the Order of Violet. "Our holy scriptures specifically forbid any portrayal of our prophet's most holy voice. We cannot permit people to slander and mock our prophet and insult all of us. These people are simply doing this to see if we are extremists. Death to the blasphemers!"
[Accept]

2. Speaking anonymously and from hiding, one of the musicians says, "It was just meant to be a joke! I never thought that they'd take it so seriously. I just wanted to give them a little ribbing like I do the other major religions of Pastafarianism and Frisbeetarianism." Dave Mistletoe glances over their shoulder to see if anyone is watching, "Please don't try to figure out who I am. I'm scared for my safety. The government should protect my freedom to insult whomever I want. Freedom of speech should hold nothing sacred, not even God."
[Accept]

3. "Freedom of speech is important, but so is freedom of religion. Surely we can strike some sort of balance?" says Randy Broadside, chief spokesperson for the SSOC (the Swilatia Society of Compromisers). "Freedom of speech comes with a responsibility. People must avoid anything that insults another's religion, and if they aren't willing to do it themselves, the government must enforce it."
[Accept]

4. "His Holiness, the Grand High Poobah of Violet, has the right idea, but doesn't take it far enough," says Zeke Spirit, says the Prelate of Primary Public Relations for the fanatical organization Swilatia's Concerned Citizens for Our God. "This nation needs an official religion, and not support the Godless heathens who worship the idolotrous Violet. Appoint me as your spiritual adviser an I'll ensure that all people worship God in the correct way."
[Accept]

5. "They've got it all wrong. Freedom of speech isn't the problem, religion is!" shouts Stephanie Mombota, at a local AA (Atheists Anonymous) meeting. "If religion were outlawed, this problem would solve itself. Just send them in for medical treatment. After all, anyone who believes in some big invisible dude who can do anything is clearly nuts."
[Accept]

This is a good issue, but option 3 doesn't really make any sense. "Freedom of speech is important, but so is freedom of religion. Surely we can strike some sort of balance."

The freedoms of speech and religion are freedoms from the Federal government, and by the due process clause of the 14th Ammendment, also apply to the States. Someone actively insulting someone else's religion, enacting their freedom of speech, does infringe on another person's freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is just the freedom to practice your religion without persecution from the Federal or State government. Individual citizens cannot infringe on other people's individual rights of free speech or religion.

Ninpou']This is a good issue, but option 3 doesn't really make any sense. "Freedom of speech is important, but so is freedom of religion. Surely we can strike some sort of balance."

The freedoms of speech and religion are freedoms from the Federal government, and by the due process clause of the 14th Ammendment, also apply to the States. Someone actively insulting someone else's religion, enacting their freedom of speech, does infringe on another person's freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is just the freedom to practice your religion without persecution from the Federal or State government. Individual citizens cannot infringe on other people's individual rights of free speech or religion.


Oh, good grief!

Nationstates is not the 'real-world' USA.

NS is unrealistic, sterotypical and extreme and created by an australian author.

and created by an australian author.
but the issue are written by players from around the world. I even submitted one, but I do not know if any admins have looked at it yet.

Yes I got one put through myself. (yay!)

The issues written aren't just by Americans, like I'm British and I remember some of the authors include the Delegate of Asia and a Cypriot based nation. Some of the issues are based on issues that mainly affect Britain. Like the hunting issue and the right of way issue.

why can't i help but thinking of the case about the muhammed drawings when reading that one :p

Oh, good grief!

Nationstates is not the 'real-world' USA.

I'm not saying that NS should work exactly as the US does. I'm saying that the person who wrote the issue has fallen victim to a popular misconception--that individual "people" can violate each other's constitutional rights. In the US's case, the Ammendments to the Constitution are limits placed on Government--not it's people.

I'm saying that the person who wrote the issue has fallen victim to a popular misconception--that individual "people" can violate each other's constitutional rights. In the US's case, the Ammendments to the Constitution are limits placed on Government--not it's people.
When you get this issue, why don't you select Option 3 and see what the result is? Oh, and take a look at the author's name.

I'm not saying that NS should work exactly as the US does. I'm saying that the person who wrote the issue has fallen victim to a popular misconception--that individual "people" can violate each other's constitutional rights. In the US's case, the Ammendments to the Constitution are limits placed on Government--not it's people.

There are three other things that you're missing:

This issue takes place in your nation, not in the US.
The speaker is not necessarily using the words in a constitutional sense, and definitely not in the sense defined in the US constitution (considering that they've never heard of the US to begin with).
Who's to say that the speaker hasn't fallen victim to that misconception. Do you blame the author of a book whenever one of his characters labors under a misconception?

I'm not saying that NS should work exactly as the US does. I'm saying that the person who wrote the issue has fallen victim to a popular misconception--that individual "people" can violate each other's constitutional rights. In the US's case, the Ammendments to the Constitution are limits placed on Government--not it's people.
Actually, it should not because some nations in NS are dictatorships that do not have a constitution.