[DEFEATED] Repeal "Freedom of the Press"

by **Astrolinium** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:29 pm

Quick Overview: This resolution would repeal GA#155, "Freedom of the Press", because (due to various poorly chosen and vague words) it is not a terribly effective resolution and, in many cases, almost seems to endorse certain practices of unnecessary censorship. If you would like a replacement, I personally will (as of this time) support the one being drafted by Auralia, which can be found here.

As I'm no longer going to be using my WA Seat nation, and, in fact, am going to let it die, I figure that, if I plan to keep working on this repeal, it should have an OP I can edit.
So, I'm thinking I'll submit tomorrow-ish, assuming I get the endos.

Repeal "Freedom of the Press"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#155
Proposed by: Astrolinium

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #155: Freedom of the Press (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Free Press) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: The Nations of the World Assembly,
COMMITTED to the goal of a free and uncensored press,
LAUDING the intent behind GA#155, "Freedom of the Press",
NOTES, however, several problems with the aforementioned resolution:
Section I, Clause 2 could easily be used by oppressive regimes to ensure that news of the atrocities committed within their borders does not reach the outside world, thereby hindering the international community in improving the world,
The language of Section II, Clause 5, specifically regarding what constitutes "a genuine threat to the security of the nation", is so vague as to allow an oppressive regime to effectively ignore the spirit of the law,
Section III, Clause 6, is counterproductive to the goal of freedom for the press, allowing nations to censor dissent,
HOPES that, in the future, any legislation passed on this matter proves to be more benevolent,
REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #155: Freedom of the Press.

Freedom of the Press
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Free Press
Proposed by: Broughdom

Description: Nations of the World Assembly,

Believing that all citizens of World Assembly member nations should have the opportunity to expand their knowledge and be educated about affairs in their own nation along with international affairs;

Defining a media technology to be any technology used for mass communication of information, including but not limited to the Internet, television, newspapers, and radio;

Further defining news media to be those elements of the mass media that focus on delivering information on current events to the general public;

Clarifying that an international news media organisation is one which has a permanent, primary base in any World Assembly nation other than the one being referenced;

Calls upon all World Assembly member nations to begin following the guidelines below to ensure a fair and free press;

Section I - Reporting

Nations will allow national news media organisations to utilise all available media technologies to report news from and to areas inside their own borders, as well as from any other World Assembly nation.

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.

Nations are encouraged to allow reporters from international news media organisations which do not operate from within their borders entry to the nation to report news back to their own nation.

Section II - Accessibility & Censorship

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

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. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

Section III - Additional

Clarifies that nations are otherwise free to control the availability of all media technologies as they see fit, except where other legislation in this field affects this right.

by **Moronist Decisions** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:48 pm

We believe that there needs to be a fine balance between national rights and the maintenance of media rights, particularly national security. Without a micromanaging WA bureaucracy, the first two clauses' flaws cannot be fixed.

Furthermore, section III clause 6 does not block further restrictions that the World Assembly may choose to pass.

Without a proposed replacement we are wary of this proposal and would probably vote against.

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:16 pm

I voted against Freedom of the Press; I'll support this repeal proposal.

by **Athfhotla** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:33 pm

Although agreeing that FotP is deserving of repeal for the reasons noted, the Kingdom cannot support any repeal proposal unless the authoring delegation or another delegation has a replacement proposal that is ready for submission the moment that FotP is repealed. Press freedom is too basic and important a civil right to go internationally unprotected for very long.

by **Astrolinium** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:03 pm

Athfhotla wrote:Although agreeing that FotP is deserving of repeal for the reasons noted, the Kingdom cannot support any repeal proposal unless the authoring delegation or another delegation has a replacement proposal that is ready for submission the moment that FotP is repealed. Press freedom is too basic and important a civil right to go internationally unprotected for very long.

And I have no interest in drafting a replacement. If you would like to do so, I welcome you to. I would even consider linking to it in the OP of this thread.

by **Athfhotla** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Astrolinium wrote:And I have no interest in drafting a replacement. If you would like to do so, I welcome you to. I would even consider linking to it in the OP of this thread.

With all due respect, Ambassador, I don't have any interest in writing a replacement either -- and I have that luxury as I'm not the one seeking support for a repeal proposal.

by **Krioval** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:28 pm

Athfhotla wrote:
Astrolinium wrote:And I have no interest in drafting a replacement. If you would like to do so, I welcome you to. I would even consider linking to it in the OP of this thread.

With all due respect, Ambassador, I don't have any interest in writing a replacement either -- and I have that luxury as I'm not the one seeking support for a repeal proposal.

So, basically, Excellency, you feel entitled to have a repeal author write a replacement that you have no desire to work on? And then you act like your opposition to the repeal is somehow appropriate? Interesting.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

by **Auralia** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:37 pm

Krioval wrote:
Athfhotla wrote:With all due respect, Ambassador, I don't have any interest in writing a replacement either -- and I have that luxury as I'm not the one seeking support for a repeal proposal.

So, basically, Excellency, you feel entitled to have a repeal author write a replacement that you have no desire to work on? And then you act like your opposition to the repeal is somehow appropriate? Interesting.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

He's perfectly justified in his opposition to the repeal. It's my opinion that repeal authors have the responsibility of having a replacement ready, if necessary, and nations are free to oppose a repeal if this responsibility isn't fulfilled.

by **Astrolinium** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 pm

Auralia wrote:
Krioval wrote:
So, basically, Excellency, you feel entitled to have a repeal author write a replacement that you have no desire to work on? And then you act like your opposition to the repeal is somehow appropriate? Interesting.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

He's perfectly justified in his opposition to the repeal. It's my opinion that repeal authors have the responsibility of having a replacement ready, if necessary, and nations are free to oppose a repeal if this responsibility isn't fulfilled.

And what if I don't believe a replacement is necessary, huh? What if this is an area in which I am rather NatSov, huh?

by **Auralia** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:55 pm

Astrolinium wrote:
Auralia wrote:
He's perfectly justified in his opposition to the repeal. It's my opinion that repeal authors have the responsibility of having a replacement ready, if necessary, and nations are free to oppose a repeal if this responsibility isn't fulfilled.

And what if I don't believe a replacement is necessary, huh? What if this is an area in which I am rather NatSov, huh?

Well, you probably won't get very many votes for this repeal, then.

by **Frisbeeteria** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:15 pm

Auralia wrote: It's my opinion that repeal authors have the responsibility of having a replacement ready, if necessary, and nations are free to oppose a repeal if this responsibility isn't fulfilled.

The opinion of the Secretariat is that there is no such obligation. You're more than welcome to vote your conscience, but please don't make it sound like it's a GA requirement, because it isn't.

by **Auralia** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:42 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Auralia wrote: It's my opinion that repeal authors have the responsibility of having a replacement ready, if necessary, and nations are free to oppose a repeal if this responsibility isn't fulfilled.

The opinion of the Secretariat is that there is no such obligation. You're more than welcome to vote your conscience, but please don't make it sound like it's a GA requirement, because it isn't.

How did I make it sound like a GA requirement? I explicitly stated that it was my opinion.

by **Athfhotla** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:06 am

Frisbeeteria wrote:The opinion of the Secretariat is that there is no such obligation. You're more than welcome to vote your conscience, but please don't make it sound like it's a GA requirement, because it isn't.

I think it was fairly obvious that Ambassador Russell wasn't even remotely suggesting that it's an official GA requirement that a repeal author should also have a replacement draft ready. From a practical perspective though, if the author actually wants his or her repeal to pass when it deals with something as basic a right as freedom of the press he or she should have a replacement draft ready.

Because the author does not have a replacement draft ready and has stated that no replacement draft will be forthcoming, the Kingdom strongly opposes this repeal proposal.

by **Krioval** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:22 am

Athfhotla wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:The opinion of the Secretariat is that there is no such obligation. You're more than welcome to vote your conscience, but please don't make it sound like it's a GA requirement, because it isn't.

I think it was fairly obvious that Ambassador Russell wasn't even remotely suggesting that it's an official GA requirement that a repeal author should also have a replacement draft ready. From a practical perspective though, if the author actually wants his or her repeal to pass when it deals with something as basic a right as freedom of the press he or she should have a replacement draft ready.

Or, y'know, some delegations could feel that national governments can maintain press freedoms without an edict from on high.

Because the author does not have a replacement draft ready and has stated that no replacement draft will be forthcoming, the Kingdom strongly opposes this repeal proposal.

Why don't you start a debate on what a replacement would need to garner your support, then? Otherwise, your opposition is noted and I will reserve further comments here (in any case) to the text of the repeal.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

by **Athfhotla** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:32 am

Krioval wrote:Why don't you start a debate on what a replacement would need to garner your support, then? Otherwise, your opposition is noted and I will reserve further comments here (in any case) to the text of the repeal.

Excuse me, Ambassador, but I have every right to state my opposition to this repeal proposal -- and I have. Moreover, I'm not sure how this is any of your concern or what gives you the authority to "reserve further comments" for anything. Are you a co-author? Did authorship of this proposal magically transfer to you while I wasn't looking?

I had no intention of going beyond my statement of opposition, but if I wanted to stand here all day and argue on behalf of the Kingdom that this repeal proposal should be opposed until a replacement draft is ready that would be a perfectly valid argument for me to make. Some of us believe that freedom of the press is too important to leave in the hands of some of the Assembly's more authoritarian member nations.

by **Sanctaria** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:37 am

Athfhotla wrote:
Krioval wrote:Why don't you start a debate on what a replacement would need to garner your support, then? Otherwise, your opposition is noted and I will reserve further comments here (in any case) to the text of the repeal.

Excuse me, Ambassador, but I have every right to state my opposition to this repeal proposal -- and I have. Moreover, I'm not sure how this is any of your concern or what gives you the authority to "reserve further comments" for anything. Are you a co-author? Did authorship of this proposal magically transfer to you while I wasn't looking?

Perhaps the Ambassador has forgotten the reason for many of us being in this Assembly. We comment on proposed resolutions and the text contained therein.

The Ambassador is saying that should the draft be changed/updated, he will comment further.

by **Athfhotla** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:51 am

Sanctaria wrote:Perhaps the Ambassador has forgotten the reason for many of us being in this Assembly. We comment on proposed resolutions and the text contained therein.

The Ambassador is saying that should the draft be changed/updated, he will comment further.

Ah, I misunderstood what the ambassador was saying. My apologies.

Since we're so insistent upon discussing the text of the repeal proposal...

Astrolinium wrote:COMMITTED to the goal of a free and uncensored press,

This should be stricken. I think it's fairly obvious that if Freedom of the Press is going to be repealed and the General Assembly isn't going to replace it, the Assembly clearly isn't "committed to the goal of a free and uncensored press."

Astrolinium wrote:LAUDING the intent behind GA#155, "Freedom of the Press",

Again, I think this should be stricken. Generally speaking, I've never understood why ambassadors feel the need to say nice things about resolutions they're trying to shred and throw into the trash.

Astrolinium wrote:NOTES, however, several problems with the aforementioned resolution:

Section I, Clause 2 could easily be used by oppressive regimes to ensure that news of the atrocities committed within their borders does not reach the outside world, thereby hindering the international community in improving the world,
The language of Section II, Clause 5, specifically regarding what constitutes "a genuine threat to the security of the nation", is so vague as to allow an oppressive regime to effectively ignore the spirit of the law,
Section III, Clause 6, is counterproductive to the goal of freedom for the press, allowing nations to censor dissent,

I would argue that this makes no sense if there are no plans to replace Freedom of the Press after it's repealed. You're arguing that Freedom of the Press has problematic clauses that could allow member nations to censor the press, and you're right. But member nations will be even more free to censor the press after FotP is repealed and every day until it's replaced. Therefore, if you're truly concerned about the points you raise I don't see how you can be fine with repealing FotP but not replacing it.

by **Astrolinium** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:58 am

Athfhotla wrote:Snippity-Snoppity-Snoo

Oh, I would support a replacement - I just feel like I personally am not the right one to draft it. There are lots of authors here whose abilities by far exceed my own and I would prefer one of them write the replacement. I sincerely doubt my own ability to produce a Freedom of the Press resolution with fewer loopholes than the one I'm trying to repeal. It's simply not my area of expertise.

by **Auralia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:03 am

I'm starting to draft a replacement.

by **Athfhotla** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:09 am

Astrolinium wrote:Oh, I would support a replacement - I just feel like I personally am not the right one to draft it. There are lots of authors here whose abilities by far exceed my own and I would prefer one of them write the replacement. I sincerely doubt my own ability to produce a Freedom of the Press resolution with fewer loopholes than the one I'm trying to repeal. It's simply not my area of expertise.

I see and I understand; that pretty well sums up why I didn't want to tackle it -- along with the certainty that whatever I propose will be ripped apart and I'll be told that I should immediately withdraw it.

As I said initially, I don't have any problem with your repeal proposal itself; I just don't want to see freedom of the press unprotected over the long term. Other than that objection, congratulations on a well-written proposal.

Auralia wrote:I'm starting to draft a replacement, but it's clearly not finished:

The Kingdom will take a look at this and provide our input soon. (OOC: If you don't have your own thread for this one, you may want to start one so you'll have definite dibs on the replacement).

by **Astrolinium** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:10 am

Auralia wrote:I'm starting to draft a replacement, but it's clearly not finished:

AFFIRMING each individual’s right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to share information and ideas with others,

FURTHER AFFIRMING each individual’s right to educate themselves about world affairs and current events,

The General Assembly hereby adopts this resolution on press freedoms:

Article I: Definitions

Section 1: A “news media organization” is defined as

Article II: Freedom of the Press

Section 1: Member nations must allow all news media organizations to report on the news without let or hindrance.

Section 2: Member nations must not prevent its citizens from accessing information provided by a news media organization.

Article III: Exceptions to Freedom of the Press

Section 1: Notwithstanding the provisions of Article II, nations are permitted to adopt reasonable restrictions on freedoms of expression and freedoms of the press, to prevent grave offenses against public decency or to protect vital national security interests.

You should get your own thread so the debate in this one doesn't become muddled. I will potentially link to that thread in the OP.

by **Auralia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:11 am

Astrolinium wrote:
Auralia wrote:I'm starting to draft a replacement, but it's clearly not finished:

AFFIRMING each individual’s right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to share information and ideas with others,

FURTHER AFFIRMING each individual’s right to educate themselves about world affairs and current events,

The General Assembly hereby adopts this resolution on press freedoms:

Article I: Definitions

Section 1: A “news media organization” is defined as

Article II: Freedom of the Press

Section 1: Member nations must allow all news media organizations to report on the news without let or hindrance.

Section 2: Member nations must not prevent its citizens from accessing information provided by a news media organization.

Article III: Exceptions to Freedom of the Press

Section 1: Notwithstanding the provisions of Article II, nations are permitted to adopt reasonable restrictions on freedoms of expression and freedoms of the press, to prevent grave offenses against public decency or to protect vital national security interests.

You should get your own thread so the debate in this one doesn't become muddled. I will potentially link to that thread in the OP.

Done.

by **Astrolinium** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:18 am

I have added a link to Auralia's replacement draft into the OP.

by **Auralia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:21 am

Astrolinium wrote:I have added a link to Auralia's replacement draft into the OP.

I'm trying to address your concerns in my replacement - did I do a relatively good job?

by **Astrolinium** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:25 am

Auralia wrote:
Astrolinium wrote:I have added a link to Auralia's replacement draft into the OP.

I'm trying to address your concerns in my replacement - did I do a relatively good job?

Looks good other than what I've expressed in that thread.

[DEFEATED] Repeal "Freedom of the Press"

[DEFEATED] Repeal "Freedom of the Press"

Who is online