[PASSED] Freedom of the Press

[Knootoss]

I promised help! So here goes. This is what you posted.

The Nations of the World Assembly,

Taking into account the fact that most nations have their own news media organisations which are allowed different levels of freedom in reporting daily news from inside and outside their borders;

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 objectively true information on current events to the general public;

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


Section I - National News Media

1) Nations will allow national news media organisations to freely report news from and to areas inside their own borders.

2) Citizens will not be restricted access to any national news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

3) Nations will not interfere with or restrict reports from news media organisations, except in cases where national security may be threatened by the free report of the information;

4) National news media organisations will be free to report international news without censorship.



Section II - International News Media

5) Citizens will not be restricted access to any international news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

6) Nations will open their borders to all reporters from international news media organisations.


Section III - Reporter Legality & Access

7) Reporters will be recognised as such if they are officially employed by a news media organisation in at least one WA nation.

8) Nations reserve the right to restrict reporter access to areas where allowing it would pose a genuine threat to national security.


Section IV - Addendum

9) Clarifies nations are otherwise free to control the availability of all media technologies as they see fit.

And this is what I'd suggest, with comments:

The Nations of the World Assembly,

Taking into account the fact that most nations have their own news media organisations which are allowed different levels of freedom in reporting daily news from inside and outside their borders; (States a fact - unnecessary)

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 objectively true information on current events to the general public; (There is no such thing about "objectively true" news. And the news media would be very small, if not non-existent, if one were to restrict it's definition to such mythical beings.)

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


Section I - National News Media

1) Nations will allow national news media organisations to freely report news from and to areas inside their own borders. (Clarification needed. Sounds nice but what the hell does "freely report" mean?)

2) Citizens will not be restricted access to any national news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation. (Clarification needed. Not restrict access how? Something like "the government will not ban" would be accurate and specific. Right now it could mean just about anything. if I want to read an entire newspaper in a news-stand, should I be allowed to?)

3) Nations will not interfere with or restrict reports from news media organisations, except in cases where national security may be threatened by the free report of the information; (Expansion needed. Governments have plenty of reasons to restrict reports, aside from national security. For starters, the news organisation might be broadcasting on frequencies which aren't theirs to begin with. There might be concerns about content which is not suitable for children. There might be other democratically adopted restrictions on freedom of expression, such as a ban on incitement to racial hatred. This clause makes it impossible for governments to do any of these things. It'd be better to just ban censorship of news for political reasons, outside the law)

4) National news media organisations will be free to report international news without censorship. (Duplicates the previous clause.)



Section II - International News Media

5) Citizens will not be restricted access to any international news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation. (Clarification needed for the same reason as above. Restricted access how? Can foreign television stations just broadcast over frequencies reserved for domestic stations? What about blatant enemy war propaganda being broadcast into other peoples' nations?

6) Nations will open their borders to all reporters from international news media organisations. (Problematic. Nations might set legitimate limitations on their immigration policies, and this would naturally include the movements of reporters. As it stands, the clause is too extreme.)

Section III - Reporter Legality & Access
7) Reporters will be recognised as such if they are officially employed by a news media organisation in at least one WA nation. (Since reporters don't get any special protections, there is no need for this clause. And are reporters employed by non-WA nations not entitled to these non-existent protections? Huh?)

8) Nations reserve the right to restrict reporter access to areas where allowing it would pose a genuine threat to national security. (Duplication from what was used above, and also too narrow for grounds already explained above.)


Section IV - Addendum

9) Clarifies nations are otherwise free to control the availability of all media technologies as they see fit. (This would potentially block all future legislation of media technologies. Bad idea.)

[Broughdom]

I can deal with a few other things tomorrow, but I just wanted to respond to this bit in particular:

7) Reporters will be recognised as such if they are officially employed by a news media organisation in at least one WA nation. (Since reporters don't get any special protections, there is no need for this clause. And are reporters employed by non-WA nations not entitled to these non-existent protections? Huh?)

The reason for this clause is to clarify who must be allowed access to a nation. For example if a nation has it's borders closed to citizens from every other nation, this resolution would require those borders to be open to reporters. Therefore reporters need to be recognised in some way so that a nation can distinguish between them and regular citizens from other nations they aren't allowing in.

And no, reporters employed by non-WA nations would not have the right to enter a WA nation with closed borders, in the same way that a reporter employed by a WA nation would not have the right to enter a non-WA nation with closed borers. This resolution obviously only applies to WA nations.

[Mousebumples]

I can deal with a few other things tomorrow, but I just wanted to respond to this bit in particular:

7) Reporters will be recognised as such if they are officially employed by a news media organisation in at least one WA nation. (Since reporters don't get any special protections, there is no need for this clause. And are reporters employed by non-WA nations not entitled to these non-existent protections? Huh?)

The reason for this clause is to clarify who must be allowed access to a nation. For example if a nation has it's borders closed to citizens from every other nation, this resolution would require those borders to be open to reporters. Therefore reporters need to be recognised in some way so that a nation can distinguish between them and regular citizens from other nations they aren't allowing in.

And no, reporters employed by non-WA nations would not have the right to enter a WA nation with closed borders, in the same way that a reporter employed by a WA nation would not have the right to enter a non-WA nation with closed borers. This resolution obviously only applies to WA nations.

Again, I see no reason why we need to open our borders to reporters from another nation. This is a loophole that could be exploited by a nation wishing to invade/etc., a given nation with closed borders. Simply register most/all of one's army as being an "international reporter," and they are guaranteed access to the nation!

No way I could possibly support any proposal with such a potentially dangerous clause within it.

[Broughdom]

Okay I've found some time so will go through a few of your points with some of my suggested changes (taking each section in turn). I've elected not to write about the preamble as your comments and amendments are reasonable as they are.

---

1) Nations will allow national news media organisations to freely report news from and to areas inside their own borders. (Clarification needed. Sounds nice but what the hell does "freely report" mean?)

2) Citizens will not be restricted access to any national news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation. (Clarification needed. Not restrict access how? Something like "the government will not ban" would be accurate and specific. Right now it could mean just about anything. if I want to read an entire newspaper in a news-stand, should I be allowed to?)

3) Nations will not interfere with or restrict reports from news media organisations, except in cases where national security may be threatened by the free report of the information; (Expansion needed. Governments have plenty of reasons to restrict reports, aside from national security. For starters, the news organisation might be broadcasting on frequencies which aren't theirs to begin with. There might be concerns about content which is not suitable for children. There might be other democratically adopted restrictions on freedom of expression, such as a ban on incitement to racial hatred. This clause makes it impossible for governments to do any of these things. It'd be better to just ban censorship of news for political reasons, outside the law)

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

2) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any national news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

3) Reports from news media organisations cannot be censored by nations for any political reasons, but are still subject to any national laws regarding restrictions on freedom of expression.

Here I have attempted to clarify a few things. I've removed clause 4 and put it in a now more explicit clause 1. I've changed clause 2 slightly to say "will not be banned from accessing" rather than "will not be restricted access". Clause 3 I've use the political reasons line but it may still need improvement.

---

I was going to go on to section II and beyond here but I've hit a brick wall (it's almost 1am) so will leave it there for now and come back to it later.

[Broughdom]

I can deal with a few other things tomorrow, but I just wanted to respond to this bit in particular:



The reason for this clause is to clarify who must be allowed access to a nation. For example if a nation has it's borders closed to citizens from every other nation, this resolution would require those borders to be open to reporters. Therefore reporters need to be recognised in some way so that a nation can distinguish between them and regular citizens from other nations they aren't allowing in.

And no, reporters employed by non-WA nations would not have the right to enter a WA nation with closed borders, in the same way that a reporter employed by a WA nation would not have the right to enter a non-WA nation with closed borers. This resolution obviously only applies to WA nations.

Again, I see no reason why we need to open our borders to reporters from another nation. This is a loophole that could be exploited by a nation wishing to invade/etc., a given nation with closed borders. Simply register most/all of one's army as being an "international reporter," and they are guaranteed access to the nation!

No way I could possibly support any proposal with such a potentially dangerous clause within it.

Well then how is it possible to have a press that is free to report news to and from all WA nations? Should I just restrict the proposal to deal with national news rather than international news? Or at least the reporting of national and international news within a country, rather than the reporting + ability to access places to report from?

[Mousebumples]

Well then how is it possible to have a press that is free to report news to and from all WA nations? Should I just restrict the proposal to deal with national news rather than international news? Or at least the reporting of national and international news within a country, rather than the reporting + ability to access places to report from?

You may be better off creating an "international news wire" of some nature (similar to the Associated Press in RL) to spread national news on an international level.

You could also put in a "Recommends" clause, asking nations to allow appropriately credentialed international reporters within their borders. Depending on the wording, it's possible I could support that. The current clause, though, is too general and ill-defined for my comfort or support.

[Equercia]

It's a good idea to set the UNABS, but how can I ensure that will fulfill a role UNABS objectively without political leanings? not forget that human nature all of one form or another express any bias or inclination, even if unconsciously.

Would expect an answer to this before confirming my support for the initiative, which at first glance seems very good

[Broughdom]

Okay, sorry it's been so long since I've had a chance to put up another draft of this but I've been rather busy in RL. Anyway, here's my third draft, taking into account some of the above comments. I've tried to make it a little less extreme in some of the things it was trying to do and limit its scope to focus on the most important areas.

The 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;

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


Section I - National News Media

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

2) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any national news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

3) Reports from news media organisations will not be censored by nations for any political reasons, but are still subject to any national laws regarding restrictions on freedom of expression.


Section II - International News Media

4) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any international news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation and do not require the use of the nation's resources to deliver news (eg. the Internet).

5) International news media organisations can only report news inside a nation using available media technologies which do require the use of the nation's resources to deliver news when given explicit permission to do so.

6) Nations are encouraged to allow reporters from international news media organisations within their borders to report news back to their own nation.


Section III - Additional

7) Clarifies 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.

The gist of 4 and 5 is to give citizens the right to access international news sources, but still give freedom to the nation to stop it. For example if they don't want any international TV news being broadcast around their country they can stop it as it would be using their resources to transmit signals, the same goes for distributing newspapers. However if someone decided to set up a satellite dish to receive TV news signals from another country, or if he went on the internet to get the information he wanted, that couldn't be stopped unless the nation completely bans TV and the internet.

6 is trying to say that nations are generally looked more fondly upon for allowing reporters into their country, but still allow them the right to block any access. It's a less extreme version of the previous no.6.

Anyway, give me your thoughts. Thanks.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador from Broughdom, so far it is looking good but wouldn't that allow citizens to access news sources that incite hatred, for example? Just wondering there.

[Knootoss]

I wouldn't put freedom of speech laws as the only possible restriction. National security can be an entirely reasonable grounds for restricting the press.


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

[Broughdom]

Honoured ambassador from Broughdom, so far it is looking good but wouldn't that allow citizens to access news sources that incite hatred, for example? Just wondering there.

Hi. Yes that's certainly a possibility but it would require citizens to actively seek out those news sources, as well as those news sources being allowed in their country of origin. Granted this is not beyond the realms of possibility, but I would say the number of occurrences of this would be small.

I wouldn't put freedom of speech laws as the only possible restriction. National security can be an entirely reasonable grounds for restricting the press.

It actually says "national laws regarding restrictions on freedom of expression". Surely national security would be a reason for restricting freedom of expression and come under that banner? I can try and change the wording of it though to be less ambiguous if necessary.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador from Broughdom, so far it is looking good but wouldn't that allow citizens to access news sources that incite hatred, for example? Just wondering there.

Hi. Yes that's certainly a possibility but it would require citizens to actively seek out those news sources, as well as those news sources being allowed in their country of origin. Granted this is not beyond the realms of possibility, but I would say the number of occurrences of this would be small./quote]
The problem is that some member countries don't want to take the chance. Also, national security:

but are still subject to any national laws regarding restrictions on freedom of expression and national security.

[Broughdom]

The problem is that some member countries don't want to take the chance. Also, national security:

but are still subject to any national laws regarding restrictions on freedom of expression and national security.

Okay, I'll add in the national security bit in the next draft.

Regarding your other point, do you suggest a clause allowing censorship of international news sources that are clearly inciting hatred? Should anything else be included with that?

[Broughdom]

Have made a few slight changes to the above (colour coded in blue). If you could all let me know your thoughts on it so far I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

The 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;

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


Section I - National News Media

1) 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.

2) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any national news sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

3) Reports from news media organisations will not be censored by nations for any political reasons, but are still subject to any laws regarding national security and other restrictions on freedom of expression.


Section II - International News Media

4) Citizens will not be banned from accessing any international news sources from any available media technologies which do not require the use of the nation's resources to deliver news (eg. the Internet), except when that source is clearly inciting hatred or no longer sticking to its role as a news media organisation.

5) International news media organisations can only report news inside a nation using available media technologies which do require the use of the nation's resources to deliver news when given explicit permission to do so.

6) Nations are encouraged to allow reporters from international news media organisations within their borders to report news back to their own nation.


Section III - Additional

7) Clarifies 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.

[Jefffia]

I would vote for that

[Richpoor]

After looking this over I have questions.
1. As a nation can I block out side media from reporting in my nation? There seems to be a conflict in this bill as if it is or is not allowed.
2. Allowing National Security to trump this law guts the intended purpose. I can proclaim Marshal Law in my nation and that would over ride this law.
3. Why is this not seen as a direct attack upon member states sovereignty?
Thank you for your response.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I assume that International news media organisations are still subject to local laws and customs of the country by default?

[Broughdom]

After looking this over I have questions.
1. As a nation can I block out side media from reporting in my nation? There seems to be a conflict in this bill as if it is or is not allowed.
2. Allowing National Security to trump this law guts the intended purpose. I can proclaim Marshal Law in my nation and that would over ride this law.
3. Why is this not seen as a direct attack upon member states sovereignty?
Thank you for your response.

1. If by "side media" you mean news sources/organisations from other nations, then yes you can block them from using your nation's resources to deliver news. For example they can only broadcast over your airwaves with your permission to do so. However you cannot block people from viewing news sources from other nations if they do not use your nation's resources to deliver news (for example internet websites) except under the conditions mentioned in clause 4.
2. That's not really a question, but I get your point. What would you suggest as an improvement to this?
3. I don't know why it isn't. Tell me why it is. Although I always thought that simply saying "national sovereignty" was not really sufficient grounds to reject a proposal.

I assume that International news media organisations are still subject to local laws and customs of the country by default?

Yes, if they are using the nation's resources to deliver news (those mentioned in clause 5). External sources however are not (those mentioned in clause 4). I could amend clause 3 to clarify this.

[Richpoor]

After looking this over I have questions.
1. As a nation can I block out side media from reporting in my nation? There seems to be a conflict in this bill as if it is or is not allowed.
2. Allowing National Security to trump this law guts the intended purpose. I can proclaim Marshal Law in my nation and that would over ride this law.
3. Why is this not seen as a direct attack upon member states sovereignty?
Thank you for your response.

1. If by "side media" you mean news sources/organisations from other nations, then yes you can block them from using your nation's resources to deliver news. For example they can only broadcast over your airwaves with your permission to do so. However you cannot block people from viewing news sources from other nations if they do not use your nation's resources to deliver news (for example internet websites) except under the conditions mentioned in clause 4.
2. That's not really a question, but I get your point. What would you suggest as an improvement to this?
3. I don't know why it isn't. Tell me why it is. Although I always thought that simply saying "national sovereignty" was not really sufficient grounds to reject a proposal.

I assume that International news media organisations are still subject to local laws and customs of the country by default?

Yes, if they are using the nation's resources to deliver news (those mentioned in clause 5). External sources however are not (those mentioned in clause 4). I could amend clause 3 to clarify this.

Thank you for your response. Let me address number my statement under 2. I been thinking that the only way is to drop National Security as a exception. Doing so will no doubt lose you support on this measure. You might word it as an option for member states to allow during this time. I really see no fix for this point, at this time. I will mull is around some more.

I do commend you on this proposal, and while national soverinty in of itseld is not sufficient grounds, it goes back to National Security. If I am unable to control the media, especially those within my borders, or to control what is allowed to air over my airwaves then I am opened to propaganda from enemies. I point to Toyoko Rose during World War II as to the point I am trying to make. My last point is to state this and let you think about it, it a devils advocate statement so please take it that way. You would have me not control internet news and the like. Only those organizations that uses my countries resourses fall under my control. Is that correct? If so, here is my counter argument. The line in which the internet travel has been installed by my country. The electric that is used to power the devices that allow my people to read the internet is produced by my electric plants. Also, since the news can reach young audience below the age of 18 I have a right to control content they see. Would you agree or disagree on this?

Thank you for taking your time in reading this. I look forward in reading your response. I hope that this helps you to think and maybe address these issues if you can in the proposal.

[Broughdom]

Thank you for your response. Let me address number my statement under 2. I been thinking that the only way is to drop National Security as a exception. Doing so will no doubt lose you support on this measure. You might word it as an option for member states to allow during this time. I really see no fix for this point, at this time. I will mull is around some more.

This is certainly a difficult aspect and I feel the issue of "national security vs civil freedoms" extends far beyond just this proposal. I will also give it some more thought as how to approach it here.

I do commend you on this proposal, and while national soverinty in of itseld is not sufficient grounds, it goes back to National Security. If I am unable to control the media, especially those within my borders, or to control what is allowed to air over my airwaves then I am opened to propaganda from enemies. I point to Toyoko Rose during World War II as to the point I am trying to make.

But you are allowed to control the media in your own nation, at least to a certain extent, and certainly enough to stop propaganda from other nations. For example you would definitely be able to stop any propaganda from radio stations broadcasting over your airwaves, as you simply remove that nation's permission to broadcast in your country.

The thing you wouldn't be able to do is stop propaganda when it is being broadcast in other nations, and your citizens actively seek it out. This follows on to your other point below so I'll continue this train of thought there.

My last point is to state this and let you think about it, it a devils advocate statement so please take it that way. You would have me not control internet news and the like. Only those organizations that uses my countries resourses fall under my control. Is that correct? If so, here is my counter argument. The line in which the internet travel has been installed by my country. The electric that is used to power the devices that allow my people to read the internet is produced by my electric plants. Also, since the news can reach young audience below the age of 18 I have a right to control content they see. Would you agree or disagree on this?

Maybe I should clarify this a little. 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 (and maybe the wording in clauses 4 and 5 could be changed to better reflect this) 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.

Thank you for taking your time in reading this. I look forward in reading your response. I hope that this helps you to think and maybe address these issues if you can in the proposal.

I appreciate your thoughts on the proposal. I want to avoid making this proposal too complicated and micro-managing how nations should approach their press' freedoms, but of course it is difficult trying to make legislature for an area that can be so subjective.

[Richpoor]

Again thank you for taking your time in helping me think this through. I love your idea, I really do. Trying to look at this in a number of ways. One if my country was a democratic open society, by all means please put this bill up. It would be a great tool to help spread our message to those people in closed societies ( like Libya today). In a tightly help government this measure would not be supported, foe obvious reasons. With there is a fix to my second point, I may decide to back this measure.

[Scandavian States]

The Empire opposes this. We have many state secrets that, for obvious reasons, we do not want out as public information. It can be strongly argued, given the open-ended nature of this resolution, that censoring for state-security reasons is political censorship.

[Broughdom]

I've completely changed the second half of the proposal. Some of the clauses are the same and in general we get the same result, but hopefully it's clearer and maybe it will appeal to more people. Anyway, let me know your thoughts:

Section I - Reporting

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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

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.


Section III - Additional

6) Clarifies 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.

[Scandavian States]

The Empire can support this revised resolution, given its respect for national laws and the acknowledge of the need for state secrets.

Regards,
Duchess Sadira Saleh,
Director of Foreign Services


[I don't think I've ever seen a resolution go from IntFed to NatSov so thoroughly. That this also serves as a blocker for more horribly intrusive resolution is a bonus.]

[Richpoor]

With these changes the Socialist Republic of Richpoor will support this resolution.