[Draft] Repeal Freedom of Expression Resolution #30

[External Nation]

This is my first proposal, so please do not give high expectation and many criticism. I am happy for all incoming valuable feedback.

Freedom of Expression
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Assured that freedom of expression is an essential human right deserving of international protection;

Determined that no one should have to put their lives, families, liberty or property at risk for expressing honest dissent with, otherwise criticizing or even satirizing their leaders, governments, societies, churches or any other institutions of established power;

Chastened by the sacrifices already made by prisoners and victims of conscience throughout the world;

Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud;

Agreed that for purposes of this resolution defamation is defined as the use of knowingly false information, or the raising of such with reckless disregard for its truthfulness, in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

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;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Votes For: 3,225
Votes Against: 992

Implemented Thu Jan 1 2009

Repeal Freedom of Expression
Assures that no one will be emotionally hurt by racism comments for one's belief

Category: Moral of Decency
Description: Reduce hatreds and increase happiness, assures that no one will be emotionally hurt by racism comments for one's belief.

We, the nations of World Assembly collectively,
Understand that maintaining racial harmony and happiness of peoples is the essential of country's success and peace, should not cause citizens to be emotionally hurt or even go psycho based on racism remarks against one's belief and/or appearance although freedom of speech is important.

Assure that no one should put themselves, their loved ones, friends, similar to the victim, states, properties risk
for having an unusual cultural passed by ancestors, following a religion or having an uncommon unattractive physical looking from birth.

Acknowledge that people's happiness and racial harmony is an essential factor to become a successful and peaceful country. Minor racism remarks may be worsen as it develop and may cause serious problems to the national security such as riots or even chaos to the world.

Understand that this is not completely restricting the rights of speech of the people to express their personal, moral and political views freely and openly without fear of reprisal although cultural, religious and races views may be expressed privately.

Chasten the troublemakers for the sake of national security and happiness of the people.

Hence, it should be resolved in the World Assembly:

1. Ensures that everyone should able to have ancestors passed cultures, following a religion or having an uncommon unattractive physical looking from birth without being hurt emotionally whether directly or indirectly.
   
2. Expects WA members to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;
   
3. Allows WA members to set reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression in order to prevent defamation, plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;
   
4. Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Oh my god, you put smilies in your proposal text.

[External Nation]

Oh my god, you put smilies in your proposal text.

1. It's just a draft
2. Wordy texts are boring, some entertainments
3. It's not illegal to do so

[The Dark Star Republic]

It's not illegal to do so

No, but they won't show up in the submission, so it's pointless.

And while the smilies may not be illegal, more or less every other part of your proposal is, so I'd strongly suggest you not submit it.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: This doesn't look like a repeal at all, rather a replacement. Did you have a repeal in mind?

[Bananaistan]

The target resolution is a piece of legislation which Bananaistan has great issues with. We see no good reason as to why politicians are not permitted to protect their reputations from wilful and deliberate defamation (as opposed to just arguments regarding opinions on policies). We also note that the target resolution contains no exception regarding confidentiality agreements or in camera court proceedings.

We are also concerned that the target resolution permits limits on expression where it incites "widespread lawlessness and disorder". Why not localised and limited lawlessness and disorder and what's the dividing line between the two? If I encourage and incite 2 people to riot, it's clearly not widespread, but what about 2000 people but only in one small area, is that widespread? And how does this interact with laws against conspiracy to commit crime?

Nevertheless, this appears to a mix of a repeal and replace in one proposal. Split it out into two, one a repeal and one a replacement, and we could then comment on the merits of your arguments.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Limiting speech because somebody's feelings may be hurt is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. I have no intention of allowing a great blocker to that sort of authoritarian approach vanish. Opposed."

[External Nation]

Thanks for all your feedback!

It's not illegal to do so

No, but they won't show up in the submission, so it's pointless.

And while the smilies may not be illegal, more or less every other part of your proposal is, so I'd strongly suggest you not submit it.

Understood. Actually I've no plans to include it in submission, just in drafts to ease boring for positive responses.

OOC: This doesn't look like a repeal at all, rather a replacement. Did you have a repeal in mind?

hmm, I repeal against the cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly only. After checking then realised this law exist so I decided to partially repeal.

The target resolution is a piece of legislation which Bananaistan has great issues with. We see no good reason as to why politicians are not permitted to protect their reputations from wilful and deliberate defamation (as opposed to just arguments regarding opinions on policies). We also note that the target resolution contains no exception regarding confidentiality agreements or in camera court proceedings.

If you read carefully, you'll see your arguments are actually included:

Hence, it should be resolved in the World Assembly:

1. Ensures that everyone should able to have ancestors passed cultures, following a religion or having an uncommon unattractive physical looking from birth without being hurt emotionally whether directly or indirectly.
2. Expects WA members to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;
3. Allows WA members to set reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression in order to prevent defamation, plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;
4. Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

We are also concerned that the target resolution permits limits on expression where it incites "widespread lawlessness and disorder". Why not localised and limited lawlessness and disorder and what's the dividing line between the two? If I encourage and incite 2 people to riot, it's clearly not widespread, but what about 2000 people but only in one small area, is that widespread? And how does this interact with laws against conspiracy to commit crime?

I'm sorry that I don't fully understand what you meant. Did you mean that it's not serious if only 2 people are to riot?

If yes, then here's my response:

Your example is non-logical unless there's a cultural/religion/race that has 2 followers only.

e.g. if there are 1,000,000 followers are Buddhist/Taoist, 500,000 are Muslims. Muslims made a racist remark that Chinese are dirty, while Chinese made a racist remark that Muslims worship a word and as black as shit.
If riots occur, at least 10% of the followers would be involved unless there are only 2 followers then definitely 2 persons are involved in the riot.

Nevertheless, this appears to a mix of a repeal and replace in one proposal. Split it out into two, one a repeal and one a replacement, and we could then comment on the merits of your arguments.

How?

"Limiting speech because somebody's feelings may be hurt is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. I have no intention of allowing a great blocker to that sort of authoritarian approach vanish. Opposed."

1. My English is mediocre, not exceptional so you might have misunderstood that this whole repeal proposal is for the sake of "sadness" only, not peace
2. Some countries like Singapore has this policy as they are multi-races country. It had riots where Muslims and Chinese were killed and that was how this policy was enforced since.
   United States also have this kind of law that you may not realised, it's Blasphemy law.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Unfortunately, due to the mechanics of how the WA works, you can't partially repeal. You would have to completely repeal and replace it with your new version.

[External Nation]

OOC: Unfortunately, due to the mechanics of how the WA works, you can't partially repeal. You would have to completely repeal and replace it with your new version.

So you mean I need to completely opposite the current Freedom of Expression Resolution?

i.e. not allowed to defame
I've to repeal to allow to defame?

Can I create a new Resolution that includes a provision repealing partially of an existing resolution? There are these kind of laws in real life.

[Outremer of Revin]

amuzing

[Separatist Peoples]

"Limiting speech because somebody's feelings may be hurt is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. I have no intention of allowing a great blocker to that sort of authoritarian approach vanish. Opposed."

1. My English is mediocre, not exceptional so you might have misunderstood that this whole repeal proposal is for the sake of "sadness" only, not peace
2. Some countries like Singapore has this policy as they are multi-races country. It had riots where Muslims and Chinese were killed and that was how this policy was enforced since.
   United States also have this kind of law that you may not realised, it's Blasphemy law.

OOC: the US has no enforced blasphemy law. One would likely be unconstitutional.

IC: "I don't especially care what the frell happens in other nations, ambassador. The decision to riot and react violently to certain slurs is a choice, not an automatic reaction. There's no reason for us to prevent blasphemy or racist opinions, because they do not automatically create violence, and we'll happily arrest perpetrators of assault. Therefore, I have no intention of supporting, or allowing, any attempt to change that. If your nation is unable to curb violence without curbing free speech, you have vastly larger problems. I remain opposed."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Unfortunately, due to the mechanics of how the WA works, you can't partially repeal. You would have to completely repeal and replace it with your new version.

So you mean I need to completely opposite the current Freedom of Expression Resolution?

i.e. not allowed to defame
I've to repeal to allow to defame?

Can I create a new Resolution that includes a provision repealing partially of an existing resolution? There are these kind of laws in real life.

If you want to change what the resolution says, you have to first repeal it, and then propose a replacement that fixes what you see as the problems in it. This is in the rules of the World Assembly and, yes, it does not reflect real life. You also can't use the original text without the permission of the author.

It's pointless discussing this any further until the OP realises this and decides whether this is either a repeal and replace, or just a repeal.

[External Nation]

So you mean I need to completely opposite the current Freedom of Expression Resolution?

i.e. not allowed to defame
I've to repeal to allow to defame?

Can I create a new Resolution that includes a provision repealing partially of an existing resolution? There are these kind of laws in real life.

It's pointless discussing this any further until the OP realises this and decides whether this is either a repeal and replace, or just a repeal.

I'm repealing it but now I'm getting criticised for repealing + replacement. So now I'm replacing it and now I'm criticised for replacing it without repealing it first.

Then what do you suggest me to do?

You also can't use the original text without the permission of the author.

Most of the text are mine, the remaining ones were fully unedited because I agree to remain those that was created by the author.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

1. My English is mediocre, not exceptional so you might have misunderstood that this whole repeal proposal is for the sake of "sadness" only, not peace
2. Some countries like Singapore has this policy as they are multi-races country. It had riots where Muslims and Chinese were killed and that was how this policy was enforced since.
   United States also have this kind of law that you may not realised, it's Blasphemy law.

You might be describing Canada or the UK, actually, where hate speech is illegal. There is no such prohibition in the United States. At any rate, Freedom of Expression allows countries to outlaw speech that would cause riots, so I don't see what your concern is.

[External Nation]

OOC: the US has no enforced blasphemy law. One would likely be unconstitutional.

You might be describing Canada or the UK, actually, where hate speech is illegal. There is no such prohibition in the United States.

Oops, then my mistake. Sorry, though I can assure countries like Singapore enforces this.

IC: "I don't especially care what the frell happens in other nations, ambassador. The decision to riot and react violently to certain slurs is a choice, not an automatic reaction. There's no reason for us to prevent blasphemy or racist opinions, because they do not automatically create violence, and we'll happily arrest perpetrators of assault. Therefore, I have no intention of supporting, or allowing, any attempt to change that. If your nation is unable to curb violence without curbing free speech, you have vastly larger problems. I remain opposed."

There's a case in United States that's automatic.
Someone joke to kill all people in China to remove US debts and protest rose.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013 ... 092816.htm

Luckily, it was a joke, not even an insult but caused protest.

If I insult the Chinese are smelly, dirty, unrespectful and shouldn't be exist in the 21st century, I'd be sliced into million of pieces by the Chinese. (sample only)

[Separatist Peoples]

There's a case in United States that's automatic.
Someone joke to kill all people in China to remove US debts and protest rose.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013 ... 092816.htm

Luckily, it was a joke, not even an insult but caused protest.

If I insult the Chinese are smelly, dirty, unrespectful and shouldn't be exist in the 21st century, I'd be sliced into million of pieces by the Chinese. (sample only)

"People can protest all they want, protest isn't the same as legal action. Bringing legal action to address blasphemy or racist comments is simply ridiculous and a genuine waste of the judiciary's time."

[External Nation]

Never mind, sorry. Since this proposal is illegal, then it's no point for carrying on to argue since the illegal reason will be the priority to reject this proposal even if the contents are good.

Perhaps can anyone suggest what can I do to these kind of repeals? Can't do anything or need to repeal whole thing before closing this topic?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Never mind, sorry. Since this proposal is illegal, then it's no point for carrying on to argue since the illegal reason will be the priority to reject this proposal even if the contents are good.

Perhaps can anyone suggest what can I do to these kind of repeals? Can't do anything or need to repeal whole thing before closing this topic?

Here's a suggestion. Quit with the smiley spam, and someone might actually take you seriously. Food for thought.

[External Nation]

Here's a suggestion. Quit with the smiley spam, and someone might actually take you seriously. Food for thought.

Is the smiley face really makes people instantly vote this as illegal?

This is a draft, why do you guys take the smiley face so seriously?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Here's a suggestion. Quit with the smiley spam, and someone might actually take you seriously. Food for thought.

Is the smiley face really makes people instantly vote this as illegal?

This is a draft, why do you guys take the smiley face so seriously?

OOC: No one voted anything as illegal, as there was nothing to vote on. Also you are supposed to be an Ambassador, and in character. Smiley spam really detracts from that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: Your Excellency, this bill does nothing. The only sections where it has operative clauses, 'Ensures', 'Expects', 'Allows', and 'Forbids', are buried in a clause which states that they 'should' happen. That makes the resolution not do anything, as it simply urges that these things happen.

Takes a drink of water, then looks at the preamble.

Parsons: Why does every 10th resolution have to paraphrase the preamble of the American Constitution?

Scans the text.

Parsons: There are quite some typos in the text.

Straightens his toga and concludes.

Parsons: However, opposed, as I feel that Kenny's text is fine.

Makes a turn away from the podium, but then doubles back.

Parsons: Hold on. Wait a second. If this is filed under a repeal, where the hell is the repeals clause? And if it is filed under repeal, why do you attempt to legislate inside that clause?

[We Are Not the NSA]

Random question: Is it illegal to put smilies in a proposal? I'm not sure if there is a specific rule against it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Random question: Is it illegal to put smilies in a proposal? I'm not sure if there is a specific rule against it.

You can't. Smileys are limited to the forums only, and the submission page will not recognize them. The actual game uses some of the bbcode present in the forum software, but only recognizes some of the code, if you get my drift?

[We Are Not the NSA]

Random question: Is it illegal to put smilies in a proposal? I'm not sure if there is a specific rule against it.

You can't. Smileys are limited to the forums only, and the submission page will not recognize them. The actual game uses some of the bbcode present in the forum software, but only recognizes some of the code, if you get my drift?

I meant like a colon(:) and an end parenthesis()). I know the it wouldn't show the little yellow things.