[PASSED] Freedom of the Press

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Section II - Accessibility & Censorship

4) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any news sources from news organisations operating both within and outside the nation's borders.

5) Reports from news organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

I wish to enquire whether the clauses allow news agencies to unreasonably intrude into people's private lives? Also, as quoted from GA#30, double check that it has protections against 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.

[Embolalia]

I have some concerns:
Regarding section 2, I'm worried this would negatively affect coverage of stories in oppressive foreign nations. (OOC: The Libyan government was attacking reporters. I think it's safe to say they didn't have explicit approval to be there. Yet, having reporters there was definitely a good thing.)
I also think 5 needs some more thought. For one, I don't know that it is written quite strongly enough. Secondly, a number of democracies that span multiple time zones (OOC: Canada) restrict the reporting of election results, in order to prevent voters from staying home because they already know the results, and thus changing the results.
I'm not entirely sure whether this might accidentally ban (or make difficult) electromagnetic spectrum allocation (the divvying up of radio frequencies, to avoid interference). I'm also worried that the last line, which might have been meant to address this, instead renders the proposal largely toothless.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Broughdom]

Section II - Accessibility & Censorship

4) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any news sources from news organisations operating both within and outside the nation's borders.

5) Reports from news organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

I wish to enquire whether the clauses allow news agencies to unreasonably intrude into people's private lives? Also, as quoted from GA#30, double check that it has protections against 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.

Thanks for the post. I was wondering when GA#30 would come up as I've already used that as a basis for my thought processes when writing some of these clauses. My general intent with what you mention above is to leave it up to the nation in question. The resolution doesn't tell a nation exactly how to govern it's press, more so it provides guidelines and assurance that the press can exist. It is up to other resolutions to dictate to nations the level of freedom their citizens (or indeed the press) can have.

The quote "free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws" is pretty much a direct reference to GA#30, in that because GA#30 imposes universal laws on all nations to ensure the freedom of expression of it's citizens, the press is therefore held to these same laws. Hence all the things you quoted from GA#30 are intrinsically upheld when it comes to the press.

Should GA#30 be repealed, it would be up to nations to choose how their press can operate and the effectiveness of this resolution would be somewhat decreased. However we would hope that any repeal of GA#30 would be quickly followed up by an improved version, thereby restoring (or even improving) this resolution's effectiveness.

[Broughdom]

I have some concerns:
Regarding section 2, I'm worried this would negatively affect coverage of stories in oppressive foreign nations. (OOC: The Libyan government was attacking reporters. I think it's safe to say they didn't have explicit approval to be there. Yet, having reporters there was definitely a good thing.)

You mean that clause 2 effectively makes it a WA issue if reports start coming from nations which haven't allowed reporters in? I see where you're coming from, but it doesn't actually address this. Clause two is about news organisations operating within a nation, not reporting news from it. The difference being that operating within nation A is to use the media technologies in nation A to deliver news to the people of nation A, whereas reporting from nation A is just getting news stories and delivering them back in nation B. In fact, clause 1 strictly allows news organisations to report from other nations. The legality of the reporters presence there is not addressed. If reporters want to "risk it" and try to report from a nation anyway they are more than happy to do so.

I also think 5 needs some more thought. For one, I don't know that it is written quite strongly enough. Secondly, a number of democracies that span multiple time zones (OOC: Canada) restrict the reporting of election results, in order to prevent voters from staying home because they already know the results, and thus changing the results.

The problem is there are probably many reasons for nations wanting to restrict reports and it would probably be impossible to include them all. However it could be argued that your specific example of time zone election results can come under a freedom of expression law imposed by the nation if they so desire (see my reasoning above in my reply to Charlotte Ryberg. In fact, GA#30 states "Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent... the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information". Election results could certainly fall under that category.
By the way, which angle are you taking with this point? Do you want it stronger (as you mention first), thereby decreasing the number of ways nations can censor the press, or the other way to allow more reasons for reports to be censored (as you mention second)?

I'm not entirely sure whether this might accidentally ban (or make difficult) electromagnetic spectrum allocation (the divvying up of radio frequencies, to avoid interference). I'm also worried that the last line, which might have been meant to address this, instead renders the proposal largely toothless.

I've said before that a very determined nation could, if they so desired, still render the press almost inoperable in their nation by simply getting rid of all forms of media technology. That is what the final clause is getting at. Of course it would be a drastic measure, but the goal of this resolution is to make it sufficiently difficult for nations to do such a thing. There would still be ways for citizens to get news (for example if there was a "news building" with some guy on a megaphone shouting it out) even with all media technologies gone. I'm not sure why it would have any effect on electromagnetic spectrum allocation though. It certainly isn't my intention to ban that, so maybe you could explain that one a little more?

[Broughdom]

Okay so with some people having said they'd agree to the proposal given the changes I've made I'd like to get this officially put up to vote. I'll leave this thread for another week or so for people to tell me any final thoughts they have and I'll either try to address them or do a redraft. Otherwise I'll get the proposal for this set up soon.
Thanks

[Charlotte Ryberg]

When you are referring to overseas operation do you mean television news services that have a permanent base or studios in that nation? It needs clarification on that area, thanks.

[Broughdom]

When you are referring to overseas operation do you mean television news services that have a permanent base or studios in that nation? It needs clarification on that area, thanks.

Yes I do. I'll add in some clarification on that front before proposing. Thanks.

[TheNoonanator]

We should have a limited number of reporters going into one country, and if a nation does not want public media in, to bad, they have to at least let one of the other nations reporters in. Then that reporter reports to other reporters in other nations, it would be a continuous cycle, it wouldn't take long considering the technology we have today. But the world needs to know what is going on behind close doors, if they don't, there could be a Third World War on our hands.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We should have a limited number of reporters going into one country, and if a nation does not want public media in, to bad, they have to at least let one of the other nations reporters in. Then that reporter reports to other reporters in other nations, it would be a continuous cycle, it wouldn't take long considering the technology we have today. But the world needs to know what is going on behind close doors, if they don't, there could be a Third World War on our hands.

The problem is that we don't want the WA letting reporters doing wrongful things like exposing private lives of private individuals.

[Broughdom]

We should have a limited number of reporters going into one country, and if a nation does not want public media in, to bad, they have to at least let one of the other nations reporters in. Then that reporter reports to other reporters in other nations, it would be a continuous cycle, it wouldn't take long considering the technology we have today. But the world needs to know what is going on behind close doors, if they don't, there could be a Third World War on our hands.

They could also just say they'll let in the reporter of an allied nation who then doesn't report the news anywhere else, thereby rendering it useless.

[Broughdom]

Okay so with some people having said they'd agree to the proposal given the changes I've made I'd like to get this officially put up to vote. I'll leave this thread for another week or so for people to tell me any final thoughts they have and I'll either try to address them or do a redraft. Otherwise I'll get the proposal for this set up soon.
Thanks

Well that week was up almost a month ago as I've been really busy with other things lately, so now I have some time the proposal is finally up. Clicking this link will take you to the proposal. Thanks to everyone who gave their ideas and helped me along the way. I hope it will get the required number of votes to get it to resolution status now and will bring some healthy debate to the table.
Any support the delegates among you would like to show by approving the proposal would be much appreciated.

Thanks again

[Zoblacon]

Freedom of the press? Pathetic creatures all of you! Let our press companies do all of the reporting!

Today's top story: King Nak thinks the vast majority of the World Assembly membership are fucking morons! In related news another batch of Assembly Gnomes have fallen for the Planetary Kingdom's "applications" for membership and shall be served to Zoblacon's homeless. Now on to the weather...

[Grays Harbor]

While the submitted draft is a considerable improvement over the initial draft, we still do not believe we can endorse this in good conscience.

[Jedi Utopians]

I am tickled by the thought of a "forced free press," as someone mentioned earlier, but inasmuch as there is always a market for information and ideas, I don't think it's forced overmuch.

The inclusion of this clause: "Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation." renders the entire proposal moot, however. Dictatorships to democracies the world over have used the "National Security Panic Button" to censor the press, and all this does is codify that. For those countries who believe and practice freedom of the press, we don't need a WA resolution to do so. For those who censor anyway, this clause will continue to give them all the legality they need with the added bonus of WA legitimacy. I cannot support it and I urge others to reexamine their support as well.

[Broughdom]

The inclusion of this clause: "Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation." renders the entire proposal moot, however.

Not really, as clause 4 ensures that the citizens of said nation can still access any news sources from organisations operating outside of their borders if they seek it out themselves. I've said it before, but the goal of this resolution is to make it sufficiently difficult for a nation to render their press inoperable, not make it absolutely impossible. It would take a lot to go that far as not allowing citizens access to any news sources from any nation would mean getting rid of all media technologies, but it could be done. However I believe that the resolution is sufficient enough to allow citizens get at least some form of news if they desire to see it.

[Jedi Utopians]

The inclusion of this clause: "Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation." renders the entire proposal moot, however.

Not really, as clause 4 ensures that the citizens of said nation can still access any news sources from organisations operating outside of their borders if they seek it out themselves. I've said it before, but the goal of this resolution is to make it sufficiently difficult for a nation to render their press inoperable, not make it absolutely impossible. It would take a lot to go that far as not allowing citizens access to any news sources from any nation would mean getting rid of all media technologies, but it could be done. However I believe that the resolution is sufficient enough to allow citizens get at least some form of news if they desire to see it.

I see what you mean, but have you considered the idea (not unconventional as of this week) that a cyberattack on a country's "media tech" could, itself, be a national security issue? There are plenty of countries that restrict the information their citizens get from abroad for national security. (North Korea modifying the results of the Olympics to make them look better, China restricting Google searches, Iran cutting off text messaging being immediate IRL examples.) All I'm saying is that clause invites not only legitimate use but also legitimizes abuse. I'm not sure how to prevent that, but thought I'd bring it up as a point to think about.

[Knootoss]

KNN World News most certainly likes this draft, and the particulars will be considered in good faith by the Knootian government. The delegation from Broughdom certainly deserves a prize for "Most Improved Upon" resolution draft.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cobdenia]

A couple of loopholes I have spotted, but they excellent loopholes I feel should remain. Which is why I'm not going to tell you what they are...

[Free Pangea]

I firmly support this and will vote for it. I hate the idea of media censorship, especially on an international level. There should also be a proposal to prevent nations from forcing news reporters to have certain points of view (my politics are very liberal and I would hate it if things like the Young Turks were banned; most people probably feel the same way). Now that I think of it I just might write one.

[Daynor]

This is the first resolution to go to vote within my delegacy.

The South Pacific will vote by majority on the forums, as many other nations do. So far, it is tied one support, one oppose. I will post here once more when we actually reach a consensus.

[Aetrina]

This resolution is ridiculous. The Kingdom Aetrina strenuously objects to being "forced" to allow foreign members of the "press" within it's borders. This action would seriously effect national security. I urge my fellow WA members to vote no.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Looks okay to me. You could expand on the term security of the nation but I assume it intends to cover disclosure of confidential documents and denial of the holocaust.

[Jesoland]

Distinguished colleagues,

my government at first was perplexed about these sorts of "freedom". But then we realized that is a concern of ours to state whether some so-called "piece of news" is a threat to our nation or not.

So, I will vote pro this resolution

Alexander Bonaga-Tronchera,
Duke of Bonagan Contado,
WA Plenipotentiary Minister of HM Francis I Bonaga the King of Jesoland

[Gratslova]

Gratslova very much supports this and has voted FOR it.

[Broughdom]

This resolution is ridiculous. The Kingdom Aetrina strenuously objects to being "forced" to allow foreign members of the "press" within it's borders. This action would seriously effect national security. I urge my fellow WA members to vote no.

This resolution does no such thing.