NationStates

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.

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.

Having re-read the resolution I now see that you are correct. I would like to apologize for my error. However this does not change my vote on this matter. The Kingdom of Aetrina firmly believes in it's sovereign right to control what "news" comes from within it's borders. The idea of a "world" news organization is fraught with peril as enemy agents can all too easily be planted as "news reporters" Also it is our position that knowledge of other nations day to day activities is of no concern to the kingdom's citizens as Aetrina's day to day activities should be of no concern to any other nation.

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.

the resolution allows for the national gov't to control all aspects of the media except for the ones stated earlier in the resolution, so your gov't should be able to crackdown on libel if it pleases. so there shouldn't be a problem.

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.

Glad to see this see the light of voting day, but I'm still voting against it, for the reasons specified earlier. I'm sure it'll pass on its title alone, but I have serious concerns that oppressive regimes will be legitimized in their crackdowns on reporters "for national security." Not that any WA member is oppresive, ofUrgenchcourse.

The Republic of Kowloon Motor Bus is going to vote FOR this resolution because it firmly believes that all people of the world have the right to know about the world they are living in, and also the freedom of speech is equally important.

Fellow Diplomats of the World Assembly:

The Confederacy of Masucciania once again rises in strong opposition to what can only be described as an inappropriate resolution for consideration by the General Assembly.

Masucciania does not feel that this is an issue that should be legislated on by the international community, but rather by the sovereign member states themselves. I understand that this is an antiquated argument and no one wants to hear it, but state sovereignty must always be protected.

Therefore, the Masuccianian delegation casts a vote of "AGAINST" and strongly urges the delegations of other member states to do so as well.

The Confederacy of Masucciania respectfully yields the floor,

What is a "genuine" threat?

"This resolution is meaningless, it contradicts itself left and right! Even if it didn't, international press could be dangerous to international security! Vote this down!"
-Representative Sera Dent

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.

Having studied this resolution and received a report from the Directorate of International Mayhem's Fourth Desk as mandated by GA #123, the Lion in Council believes that this is a reasonable compromise between national sovereignty and the right of citizens to be informed, while not unduly compromising our security system. Therefore, with consultation (and objections heard from the Ministry of Defense), the Lion in Council has directed me to vote for this legislation.
- J Crick

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.

I couldn't have said it better.- Representative Sera Dent

Domeshka's only concern with this legislation is about the clause that states media can be restricted for "national security."

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.

To our nation, that's a bit vague, and easily used to restrict media on anything. For example, a government could withhold results of an election, claiming it puts the candidates in jeopardy. Or a government could claim reporting on/about a war causes a great security threat, and in fact create a secret war. The government could deny media coverage on health aspects of certain facilities, or any other criminal activity/negligence in government programs, claiming it's part of national security, to protect the people.

We feel this wording and clause has been used in the past by governments, to control and censor the news media, and this clause does not prevent it from happening again.

This doesn't mean Domeshka shall vote against it, as our nation has not reached a decision on this resolution as of yet.

The delegation from the nation of Titanisa votes against this act.

With respect to the representatives from Domeshka, we wonder if they entirely thought their concerns through before making them public. We will put forth a point-by-point counter for each concern. On elections, we wonder if Domeshka is opposed to the concept of secret ballot, which is a basic tenet to any nation with any kind of democratic process, or if they are worried about something that only banana republic faux-democracies do anyway; either way, it's not that much of a concern. As for wars, any nation with any kind of common sense heavily restricts even the most basic kind of information during a conflict lest enemy commanders glean information from new reports that they should not gain without some kind of cost (in blood or treasure); wars are by their nature secretive business and the closer one gets to special operations the blacker the action (to the point where one often sees secret wars within the broader conflict.) As for "negligence" in government facilities, especially as it regards health, those kinds of concerns are only usually true in facilities that aren't even acknowledged to exist in the first place, so any issues within those compounds would certainly fall into the category of state secrets.

With due respect to the Scandavian States...

We wonder if you realized Domeshka's concerns before belittling them entirely. We understand certain ASPECTS of elections MUST be kept confidential (i.e. ballots), to ensure restriction from pressured voting, etc. But we're talking about ELECTION RESULTS. Who fairly won, and so on. Without the media REPORTING THIS INFORMATION, governments could withhold the results, claiming another candidate won, and telling the world they were democratically elected. All in the name of keeping the results secret, due to "national security". As for wars... we are not simpletons in the aspect of wars. We understand that certain aspects of military intelligence must be kept secret. We're not advocating displaying secrets and strategies, either. Nor are we even advocating front line reporting (although nations can do so if they wish). We are however saying that the people have a right to know about a war publicly. The whole act of war. Such as a nation cannot censor the coverage or reporting of a war, just so the citizens are kept in the dark about the government's actions towards other countries. For example, a nation invading another nation for natural resources it prevents, but keeping it from its population, due to a desire to keep its image clean, and covering up the war in an act of "national security." As for your last point... I don't see EVERY government facility liable to have health concerns to be kept a secret. Water sanitation factories, for example, are WIDELY acknowledged to exist, yet a health problem or negligence within it would cause severe damage if kept from the population (which a government might do, to keep its international image clear). And furthermore, these three examples are just that- examples. Many more issues could be kept under wraps for "security's" sake.

The people of Domeshka are somewhat confused about your simplification of Domeshka's concerns, and we would like to return your concern in wondering if YOU thought through the issues we presented before refuting them, with such glaring omissions.

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.

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.

For me, if nations don't want to allow foreign journalists to report on domestic events, its their own right. Just as it is their right to be unable to protect against professional espionage. Journalists should be subject to the same immigration requirements as everyone else- nations have a right to refuse entry to them for miscellaneous reasons, but if they fail to stop, and indeed encourage, foreign spies from intelligence agencies with a more serious motive, it's not anyone's fault either.

I'm against this as the language is a little too vague in some areas.

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.

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.

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?

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. (EDIT: I'm actually a little confused about this statement. Do you mean the citizen's access of foreign news, or the access of foreign news to the nation? If it's the second instance, I don't see any clause other than the one being referenced that deals with that)

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.

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.

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?

Anyway, I continue to be opposed due to the broad language, which could be bent to be full of loopholes or extend WA control. But, still, continued good luck.

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?

Well we've already identified that clause 2 doesn't allow international media to report in a nation without their permission. Therefore the fact it originates in another nation doesn't matter in terms of this. Any news from them can't be blocked, but at the same time they can't use media technologies in a nation to deliver that news themselves without permission from the nation. So yes, nations can bar international media from reporting in their nations.

The distinction comes from the idea of news being presented to citizens by organisations operating within it's borders, and citizens actively seeking it out from organisations operating outside it's borders. I have actually addressed this point earlier in the topic, so this quote probably says everything I would've said in response to your question:

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.

The Nomadic Peoples of The Yaupon Forests have decided together to endorse this resolution, while expressing the following concerns:

Recognizing that certain loopholes in the language of this resolution could allow for certain regimes to comply with yet undermine the intent of the text

ALSO

Recognizing that access to news sources is only completely free when all citizens in a nation have the means to access that information, and where some citizens lack literacy or equal access to televised and web-based material, there can be no true freedom of the press.

Sincerely, Temporary Ambassador to the WA of The Nomadic Peoples of The Yaupon Forests,
Samool ibn Ibrahim Al-Mousavi

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:

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;

. 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.

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?

I agree strongly. Thank you for stating this.