Advertisement
by Broughdom » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:24 pm
by Aetrina » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:36 pm
Broughdom wrote:Aetrina wrote: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.
Eist wrote:Nice! Wait. Am I the knight or the unicorn?
I think the joke would be less effective if you were the unicorn.
by Amjad Shah » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:58 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Our primary objection is similar to our objection to the other one. We do not find the idea of a mandatory press to be at all appealing. What safeguards would there be to prevent them from bias? Blatant anti-government stories? Manipulation? We do support the idea of a free and independent press, but do not believe that mandating what and who it shall be is the way to go. We see far more potential for abuse than for good.
by Jedi Utopians » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:35 pm
Broughdom wrote:OOC: Thank you all for your help in getting this proposal up to vote. I'm very happy to have finally made it here and after the long journey am pleased that this is finally up for vote + debate.
To any of your with doubts about the proposal and are considering voting against, please take some time to read through this thread (particularly some of the later posts) as I try to address concerns there. However of course feel free to debate and discuss and vote however you with.
Finally, thanks again to all those who helped with the drafting of this resolution. I'd like to think it is much improved now and I appreciate your efforts in helping me understand the ways of the WA.
by Kowloon Motor Bus » Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:29 pm
by Masucciania » Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:32 pm
by Danatha » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:28 pm
by Democratic Koyro » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:50 pm
by Moronist Decisions » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:27 am
by Danatha » Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:52 am
Democratic Koyro wrote:this resolution if passed would cause significant security issues in many WA nations, both Democratic and Dictatorial. Indeed if this resolution is passed by the General Assembly it will not be complied with by the Koy People's Democratic Republic. Issues such as Freedom of the Press must be left to the individual member state to decide how much freedom the press has in thier nation and what they may report on.
by Domeshka » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:49 pm
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.
by Scandavian States » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:20 pm
by Domeshka » Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:30 pm
by The Red Dirts » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:42 am
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:49 am
The Red Dirts wrote:This measure includes this phrase...
International news media organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders (ie. utilising available media technologies to report news) when given explicit permission to do so, and are subject to the same laws which apply to national news media organisations.
Our journalist can not report from other countries without their permission? What about the battle field or during international events or injustices. This is more limiting to the press than it is helpful. Our journalist take a good hard look at international matters and report the facts. I will not have them bound to follow the orders or laws of some other county with less journalistic integrity. I understand that if our people violate the laws of anther nation, they may be subject to their laws. I am all for sovereignty But this is international law, and it oversteps (perhaps accidentally) into giving assembly support to violence and prosecution of true journalist by totalitarian and suppressive regimes.
by Broughdom » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:48 am
The Red Dirts wrote:This measure includes this phrase...
International news media organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders (ie. utilising available media technologies to report news) when given explicit permission to do so, and are subject to the same laws which apply to national news media organisations.
Our journalist can not report from other countries without their permission? What about the battle field or during international events or injustices. This is more limiting to the press than it is helpful. Our journalist take a good hard look at international matters and report the facts. I will not have them bound to follow the orders or laws of some other county with less journalistic integrity. I understand that if our people violate the laws of anther nation, they may be subject to their laws. I am all for sovereignty But this is international law, and it oversteps (perhaps accidentally) into giving assembly support to violence and prosecution of true journalist by totalitarian and suppressive regimes.
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:53 am
Broughdom wrote:The Red Dirts wrote:This measure includes this phrase...
International news media organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders (ie. utilising available media technologies to report news) when given explicit permission to do so, and are subject to the same laws which apply to national news media organisations.
Our journalist can not report from other countries without their permission? What about the battle field or during international events or injustices. This is more limiting to the press than it is helpful. Our journalist take a good hard look at international matters and report the facts. I will not have them bound to follow the orders or laws of some other county with less journalistic integrity. I understand that if our people violate the laws of anther nation, they may be subject to their laws. I am all for sovereignty But this is international law, and it oversteps (perhaps accidentally) into giving assembly support to violence and prosecution of true journalist by totalitarian and suppressive regimes.
I think you are misunderstanding the clause.
If a journalist from country A wants to enter country B and report news back to country A, he is more than happy to do so. This resolution does not regard that situation at all. If country B is not happy about it and/or has laws in place to try to prevent such a thing, then the journalist from country A enters at his own risk but is free to make his own choice.
The clause you are quoting deals with the following situation: If a news organisation from country A wants to enter country B and report news in country B (for example, the BBC providing a television news service in any country other than the UK which is where it is based) then it is only allowed to do so with the explicit permission from country B.
So as I said, I think you have misunderstood what that specific clause wants to do - it does not say what a journalist from any nation can or can not do when reporting news back to it's own nation.
by Broughdom » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:07 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:I would have preferred "without the explicit objection of country B", because I dislike an "opt-in" system in the WA.
And how would that complement the other clause which prohibits the access of foreign news?
Does that mean that nations can block internet access to international news websites within their own borders, or would that be protected by the other clause?
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:12 am
Broughdom wrote:Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:I would have preferred "without the explicit objection of country B", because I dislike an "opt-in" system in the WA.
If you had mentioned this during the drafting phase I probably could have changed it, but I am powerless to do such a thing now.And how would that complement the other clause which prohibits the access of foreign news?
Please tell me which clause you mean, as I don't see any clause which prohibits the access of foreign news.Does that mean that nations can block internet access to international news websites within their own borders, or would that be protected by the other clause?
A nation can't block internet access to international news websites. Them being international means that they originate from outside the nation's borders and therefore do not come under their control. Clause 4 states that citizens will not be banned from accessing any news sources, both national and international, and clause 5 only allows national news sources to be amended/censored, not international ones. Through clause 6 a nation could get rid of the internet altogether, meaning it's citizens couldn't access international news websites, but that is the only way to do this.
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:19 am
by Broughdom » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:27 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Oops, I meant the clause banning nations from prohibiting international news websites. But doesn't that mean that nations cannot bar international media from reporting in their nations, whether through the internet or through other forms of technology, since the news technically originates from outside the nation?
The difference is that any internet sites aren't being forced upon the citizens in your nation. The same goes for, say, television programmes being broadcast in another country. If a citizen in your nation decides that he wants to watch a news programme from another country by using his satellite dish to access it, he should be allowed. The difference here is that the citizen has actively taken measures to seek it out, rather than it being freely available on your nation's usual television satellite listings. The same idea extends to the internet - in that someone has to actively click/search for a website which contains the information, rather than it being say listed as a link on a national portal webpage for example.
The idea I'm trying to get across is that all news organisations operating and broadcasting within your country, be they national or international, are subject to the same rules, but those operating outside your borders are not. The distinction being that organisations operating within your country are much more easily available to your citizens.
by The Yaupon Forests » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:53 am
by Braxil » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:40 pm
Broughdom wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote:Glen-Rhodes might be able to sign on to something like this. But would the proposal be about press as an industry or press as technology? The distinction being between freedom of newspapers to print stories and freedom of people to write those stories, or any other 'news' items even if not published in newspapers or equivalent publications.
- Dr. B. Castro
I'm not sure if I'm confused by your question or not, but I believe in the way you've put it the proposal would be about press as an industry. The only press to be considered by this proposal would be that which has officially been deemed a media organisation in their own country, not random snippits of "news" from just any source.
Currently from resolution 30 we have:. Therefore it's already required in all WA nations that people are free to write what they like, and the media (newspapers, TV, etc) is free to publish those stories. What we don't have is anything regarding international issues. For example, a reporter in one nation is free to write what he likes about things in his own nation, but could be restricted from either leaving his own nation or entering another nation, and so cannot write about issues happening there. The primary aim of this proposal would be to allow that reporter access to any other WA nation, and therefore due to resolution 30 can then write about the proceedings there and report it back in his own country.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;
The secondary aim is to make it more difficult for nations to restrict their citizens from accessing news from international media sources which I have mentioned above with regards to the internet as an example.
However that has got me thinking about something. Res 30 says "Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media". Does this mean that nations have to allow any media sources available in the world today, or just allow freedom of expression in any media sources that exist in their country (meaning they could outlaw all media sources in their country to restrict their people from seeing any news at all)? Maybe I should include something in the proposal that addresses the ability for media organisations to operate in their own country first, before moving on to the international aspects?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement