[PASSED] Freedom to Read and Learn

[Frisbeeteria]

Freedom to Read and Learn
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDS past initiatives to build libraries and guarantee freedom of expression,

AFFIRMS that those advancements are of little value without the right to access knowledge,

RECOGNIZES that the World Assembly does not prohibit nor obligate member states to regulate or ban certain works, for example works advocating illegal acts,

Enacts:

No person shall be punished for reading, nor for enabling oneself and/or another to read, nor for acquiring knowledge and/or cultural enrichment from non-readable media or reading media adapted for individuals with disabilities, provided that the material was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available.

Simple and straight to the point.

Your Excellencies' input is always valued.

Yours walking by the lake,

[Sionis Prioratus]

[reserved for any future FAQ]

[Ossitania]

We're curious as to why only written material gets this protection. Shall nations continue to be at liberty to deny access to knowledge not presented through the medium of the written word? I can see this being a problem for people with disabilities. Surely they should have access to audio or non-written visual media? Indeed, it is debatable whether Braille is even written, as I understand it is printed, hell, surely the printed word is not protected by this.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We're curious as to why only written material gets this protection. Shall nations continue to be at liberty to deny access to knowledge not presented through the medium of the written word? I can see this being a problem for people with disabilities. Surely they should have access to audio or non-written visual media? Indeed, it is debatable whether Braille is even written, as I understand it is printed, hell, surely the printed word is not protected by this.

A cogent and important point, Your Excellency. See if the text is sufficiently modified in order to allay Your Excellency's concerns.

Yours in deep gratitude,

[Zaklen]

This would make it legal to possess and read plans for a terrorist attack, and any other piece of information that is illegal to have for whatever valid reason. Let's say...someone has a list of locations where child porn is being made. This would make that person immune from arrest.

[Sionis Prioratus]

This would make it legal to possess and read plans for a terrorist attack, and any other piece of information that is illegal to have for whatever valid reason. Let's say...someone has a list of locations where child porn is being made. This would make that person immune from arrest.

We had anticipated this kind of objection would arise. Planning (by buying fertilizer, e.g.) or executing a terrorist attack would still be perfectly legal grounds for arrest and prosecution. Knowledge per se should never be criminalized. Evil actions, always. Further, Freedom of Expression states:

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;

Writing and/or distributing evil material is and shall forever be within the purview of nations to criminalize.

Please feel free to state if this allays Your Excellency's concerns.

Yours,

[Ossitania]

We're curious as to why only written material gets this protection. Shall nations continue to be at liberty to deny access to knowledge not presented through the medium of the written word? I can see this being a problem for people with disabilities. Surely they should have access to audio or non-written visual media? Indeed, it is debatable whether Braille is even written, as I understand it is printed, hell, surely the printed word is not protected by this.

A cogent and important point, Your Excellency. See if the text is sufficiently modified in order to allay Your Excellency's concerns.

Yours in deep gratitude,

Hmmm, strictly speaking, does this not still allow governments to restrict access to media which is not written but is not adapted for the disabled? Additionally, while the principle here is sound, we believe some sort of privacy stipulation may be necessary since even if such information is not acted upon in anyway, even if it is legally obtained, it can be a source of anxiety for individuals that other people know private information about them. For example, a closeted gay teenager may suffer anxiety if he knows someone learned he is gay from a page of a diary that he lost and they found unsurreptitiously, even if that person does nothing to act on that information. The mere threat that they could act on it could cause an unhealthy amount of stress.

This would make it legal to possess and read plans for a terrorist attack, and any other piece of information that is illegal to have for whatever valid reason. Let's say...someone has a list of locations where child porn is being made. This would make that person immune from arrest.

It would make them immune from arresting for merely knowing the information but they could still be prosecuted for not giving that information to the police, which is surely the thing that such a person would actually be doing wrong. Merely possessing the knowledge would not be a crime in itself. Similarly with the terrorist plans. There are lots of people who know how to make a bomb. That's not a crime. Making a bomb is a crime. Using a bomb is a crime. This resolution protects the right to learn information, not to utilise or withhold that information and certainly not to utilise or withhold it unethically.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Hmmm, strictly speaking, does this not still allow governments to restrict access to media which is not written but is not adapted for the disabled?

Thanks for having engaged in this debate Your Excellency, Your Excellency's opinion is precious and valued. We are of the opinion that any media not intended for an audience of one at a time, like a book, or a magazine in Braille, would be better defined as mass media - therefore a medium of expression, controlled by "Freedom of Expression" - instead of individual reading.

Additionally, while the principle here is sound, we believe some sort of privacy stipulation may be necessary since even if such information is not acted upon in anyway, even if it is legally obtained, it can be a source of anxiety for individuals that other people know private information about them. For example, a closeted gay teenager may suffer anxiety if he knows someone learned he is gay from a page of a diary that he lost and they found unsurreptitiously, even if that person does nothing to act on that information. The mere threat that they could act on it could cause an unhealthy amount of stress.

Whilst certainly a beyond regrettable situation in Your Excellency's example, we do think this falls outside the purview and intent of the legislation. The World Assembly could certainly benefit from a good resolution on preventing bullying (even on a system already governed by the CoCR and the Sexual Privacy Act) but to do that here would result in neither a good reading rights resolution, nor in a good bullying prevention resolution. Other tributary, similar examples, could similarly fall within the purview of sui generis resolutions.

This would make it legal to possess and read plans for a terrorist attack, and any other piece of information that is illegal to have for whatever valid reason. Let's say...someone has a list of locations where child porn is being made. This would make that person immune from arrest.

It would make them immune from arresting for merely knowing the information but they could still be prosecuted for not giving that information to the police, which is surely the thing that such a person would actually be doing wrong. Merely possessing the knowledge would not be a crime in itself. Similarly with the terrorist plans. There are lots of people who know how to make a bomb. That's not a crime. Making a bomb is a crime. Using a bomb is a crime. This resolution protects the right to learn information, not to utilise or withhold that information and certainly not to utilise or withhold it unethically.

We concur with the wise words from the Ambassador from Ossitania.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This would make it legal to possess and read plans for a terrorist attack, and any other piece of information that is illegal to have for whatever valid reason. Let's say...someone has a list of locations where child porn is being made. This would make that person immune from arrest.

We had anticipated this kind of objection would arise. Planning (by buying fertilizer, e.g.) or executing a terrorist attack would still be perfectly legal grounds for arrest and prosecution. Knowledge per se should never be criminalized. Evil actions, always. Further, Freedom of Expression states:

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;

Writing and/or distributing evil material is and shall forever be within the purview of nations to criminalize.

Please feel free to state if this allays Your Excellency's concerns.

Yours,

This must be a very interesting read but member countries might not be confident without a disclaimer being made clear in the text. If such a move is impossible, however, we may as well stick to the current version subject to subsequent revisions.

[Sionis Prioratus]

This would make it legal to possess and read plans for a terrorist attack, and any other piece of information that is illegal to have for whatever valid reason. Let's say...someone has a list of locations where child porn is being made. This would make that person immune from arrest.

We had anticipated this kind of objection would arise. Planning (by buying fertilizer, e.g.) or executing a terrorist attack would still be perfectly legal grounds for arrest and prosecution. Knowledge per se should never be criminalized. Evil actions, always. Further, Freedom of Expression states:

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;

Writing and/or distributing evil material is and shall forever be within the purview of nations to criminalize.

Please feel free to state if this allays Your Excellency's concerns.

Yours,

This must be a very interesting read but member countries might not be confident without a disclaimer being made clear in the text. If such a move is impossible, however, we may as well stick to the current version subject to subsequent revisions.

Your Excellency, we exceedingly thank Your Excellency for engaging in the debate. Your Excellency's idea has occured to us, but to be frank we worry that if we make even a single little "clarification", we shall have indeed to make all possible clarifications, leading us farther instead of closer to the desired clarity. For the time being, we think that a future F.A.Q. to be posted at the start of this debate shall be more respectful towards the Ambassadors' intelligence.

Yours most gracefully playing a harpsichord,

[Linux and the X]

We would recommend protecting "written or printed" material, rather than only "written" material.
We also believe the strength of this can only be "mild", as it only protects possessing and reading material. It does not protect purchasing, borrowing, taking, receiving, etc. anything, and therefore is easily loopholed.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We also believe the strength of this can only be "mild", as it only protects possessing and reading material. It does not protect purchasing, borrowing, taking, receiving, etc. anything, and therefore is easily loopholed.

Your Excellency, with all due respect, we fail to see how the freedom to possess and to read a Bible, a Koran, the Torah, On the Origin of Species and not be imprisoned for it is, as Your Excellency vacuously states, "mild". As for the so-called "loopholes", we shall meditate on those points and return to Your Excellency in due course.

Yours reading the Torah,

p.s.:

We would recommend protecting "written or printed" material, rather than only "written" material.

Can one actually say that that printed text is not written text? Written does not equal handwritten, in our view.

[Ossitania]

Hmmm, strictly speaking, does this not still allow governments to restrict access to media which is not written but is not adapted for the disabled?

Thanks for having engaged in this debate Your Excellency, Your Excellency's opinion is precious and valued. We are of the opinion that any media not intended for an audience of one at a time, like a book, or a magazine in Braille, would be better defined as mass media - therefore a medium of expression, controlled by "Freedom of Expression" - instead of individual reading.

I'm not sure that you're really responding to my point. As written, this resolution doesn't guarantee the right of a family to own and possess their home videos or to receive videos from family abroad, it doesn't guarantee the right of inheritors to view a video will, etc. There exists media intended for individual consumption that are not in written form.

Additionally, while the principle here is sound, we believe some sort of privacy stipulation may be necessary since even if such information is not acted upon in anyway, even if it is legally obtained, it can be a source of anxiety for individuals that other people know private information about them. For example, a closeted gay teenager may suffer anxiety if he knows someone learned he is gay from a page of a diary that he lost and they found unsurreptitiously, even if that person does nothing to act on that information. The mere threat that they could act on it could cause an unhealthy amount of stress.

Whilst certainly a beyond regrettable situation in Your Excellency's example, we do think this falls outside the purview and intent of the legislation. The World Assembly could certainly benefit from a good resolution on preventing bullying (even on a system already governed by the CoCR and the Sexual Privacy Act) but to do that here would result in neither a good reading rights resolution, nor in a good bullying prevention resolution. Other tributary, similar examples, could similarly fall within the purview of sui generis resolutions.

Again, I'm not quite sure you're responding to my point. I'm not talking about someone being threatened with the information being used against them. I'm talking about suffering distress because the possibility of the information being used against them exists, even if the person who knows the information has no intention of doing so and has not indicated an intent to do so. We really don't agree with an inherent right to access the private, personal information of another person and a failure to include provisions relevant to this in the draft could be the deal breaker for us.

We also believe the strength of this can only be "mild", as it only protects possessing and reading material. It does not protect purchasing, borrowing, taking, receiving, etc. anything, and therefore is easily loopholed.

Your Excellency, with all due respect, we fail to see how the freedom to possess and to read a Bible, a Koran, the Torah, On the Origin of Species and not be imprisoned by it is, as Your Excellency states, "mild". As for the supposed loopholes, we shall meditate on those points and return to Your Excellency in due course.

The difficulty here would be that ensuring a right to receive the material containing information by some means must logically follow with a right to give that information, which would undermine the principle I espoused earlier in response to the ambassador from Zaklen - that knowing information is not criminal but using that information unethically is. I find it difficult to imagine how a right to access information could be enshrined without a right to spread information around being necessarily granted - and I don't believe that the earlier quoted clause in Freedom of Expression prevents individuals from, for example, selling nuclear launch codes to terrorists. However, if the right to receive information and the right to give information were enshrined, criminalising such an exchange would be rather difficult.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A much better example I need to point out on the topic, for reference, is Mein Kampf, which is actually banned Charlotte Ryberg, unlike Minoa. The dissemination of Nazi ideologies is prohibited and punishable under the penal code. I think that some member countries would need assurance that this draft would not make such books legal in any way. As such, I feel that the FAQ would be appropriate for this purpose, but if it is possible to add a disclaimer because the FoE missed something out that I didn't notice to date, then it should be done.

In addition, "written material" should be "published material" to cover the proliferation of digital media.

[Ossitania]

A much better example I need to point out on the topic, for reference, is Mein Kampf, which is actually banned Charlotte Ryberg, unlike Minoa. The dissemination of Nazi ideologies is prohibited and punishable under the penal code. I think that some member countries would need assurance that this draft would not make such books legal in any way. As such, I feel that the FAQ would be appropriate for this purpose, but if it is possible to add a disclaimer because the FoE missed something out that I didn't notice to date, then it should be done.

In addition, "written material" should be "published material" to cover the proliferation of digital media.

We agree with the suggested word change here, as it would also cover musical material.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Mein Kampf, which is actually banned [in] Charlotte Ryberg

As Your Excellency well knows, Your Excellency's nation is allowed to do that (ban impression, distribution and propaganda) under Freedom of Expression. That shall not be changed. Anyway, Your Excellency's point is taken and I shall in the long run consider a clarification for those nations that do not have at least one intelligent ambassador.

"[W]ritten material" should be "published material" to cover the proliferation of digital media.

That suggestion is fine and germane and we shall see that it is incorporated into the text.

Yours extolling the virtues of Camembert cheese,

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm not sure that you're really responding to my point. As written, this resolution doesn't guarantee the right of a family to own and possess their home videos or to receive videos from family abroad, it doesn't guarantee the right of inheritors to view a video will, etc. There exists media intended for individual consumption that are not in written form.

Ah. We do think we now understand the issue. It could be done. My only worry is that would perhaps unnecessarily dilute the message.

We really don't agree with an inherent right to access the private, personal information of another person

We honestly do not know where the Ambassador is coming from; neither do, nor could we agree with that. But first things first; information to be deemed private, must be located on private space beforehand. We are at pains to imagine that a gay teenager, which fears the revelation of his (presumably unknown to others) sexual orientation, would upon writing a sensitive diary, place it in a kitchen table, a presumably public (to the family) space. Sensitive information should be placed on private premises, in order to be considered private. A violation of private space is first and foremost, a matter of criminal trespassing, before any other considerations. We pray that the Ambassador may have this in mind on further elaborations on the issue.

However, if the right to receive information and the right to give information were enshrined, criminalising such an exchange would be rather difficult.

We agree.

Yours looking for pandas hidden under a jade carriage,

[Ossitania]

I'm not sure that you're really responding to my point. As written, this resolution doesn't guarantee the right of a family to own and possess their home videos or to receive videos from family abroad, it doesn't guarantee the right of inheritors to view a video will, etc. There exists media intended for individual consumption that are not in written form.

Ah. We do think we now understand the issue. It could be done. My only worry is that would perhaps unnecessarily dilute the message.

I'm sure that wordsmithing could circumvent that.

We really don't agree with an inherent right to access the private, personal information of another person

We honestly do not know where the Ambassador is coming from; neither do, nor could we agree with that. But first things first; information to be deemed private, must be located on private space beforehand. We are at pains to imagine that a gay teenager, which fears the revelation of his (presumably unknown to others) sexual orientation, would upon writing a sensitive diary, place it in a kitchen table, a presumably public (to the family) space. Sensitive information should be placed on private premises, in order to be considered private. A violation of private space is first and foremost, a matter of criminal trespassing, before any other considerations. We pray that the Ambassador may have this in mind on further elaborations on the issue.

Consider the scenario where a young gay teenager is doing some spring cleaning. Afterwards, he has difficulty finding his diary and realises that he accidentally put it in a box of old books which was sent to a charity shop. He goes to the charity shop to retrieve the book, clearly marked as private, and finds the owner of the charity shop reading it, having taken it from the box and gone on to read it despite the warning on the front. Even if the charity shop owner never does anything with the information, we don't see that he has an inherent right to know it and we don't see that the teenager should have to live with the possibility of the charity shop owner abusing that information hanging over his head. We're not arguing that it be demanded that reading personal, private materials be considered criminal - we just request that the possibility to criminalise it in at least some cases remain open.

[Pollepao]

Might Pollepao suggest a revised version of this resolution?

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING past initiatives to build libraries and guarantee freedom of expression,

BEING AWARE that those facilities and rights are meaningless and void without the right to access written knowledge,

Declares:

That no person shall be punished for simply possessing any published literary material, nor for reading any published literary material,

That the same protections shall apply to reading material adapted for individuals with disabilities, and;

That World Assembly member states shall still have the right to regulate or ban offensive works, such as pornographic works, works advocating, inciting or encouraging disorder, violence, lawlessness and or illegal acts, and works that may endanger any individuals life.

The changes we suggest would cover Ossitania's scenario, as a personal diary is not published material so it could still be made illegal by memberstates to read it. Also, this new definition would cover digital works and even audio-books as they would count as published literary material.

In addition, the new clause would make sure that even should Freedom of Expression be repealed, nations would still have the right to outlaw. WA law does tell us that all acts would stand on their own, and be able to still function should any all other resolutions be repealed.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Your Excellencies dear Ambassadors from Ossitania and from Pollepao, we are profoundly indebted to Your Excellencies on account of Your Excellencies' invaluable suggestions, ideas and considerations. Upon meditation and consultation, we have arrived at the following:

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDS past initiatives to build libraries and guarantee freedom of expression,

IS AWARE that those facilities and rights are meaningless and void without the right to access written knowledge,

AFFIRMS the right of World Assembly member states to regulate or ban offensive works, such as pornographic works, works advocating, inciting or encouraging disorder, violence, lawlessness and/or illegal acts, and works that may endanger any individuals life,

Declares:

No person shall be punished for simply possessing any reading material, nor for simply reading any material.

The same protections shall apply to reading material adapted for individuals with disabilities, and to other kinds of non-readable media, the content of which was created to impart knowledge and/or cultural enrichment.

In addition to the above, nations may carve exceptions for autobiographical works intended to remain private by the author.

Would that allay Your Excellencies' concerns?

Yours singing a new hymn to an opal statue of the Goddess,

[Moronist Decisions]

I would expect that nations should have the right to confiscate illegally produced or illegal works (e.g. plans for terrorist attacks, books that contravene copyright laws) though without performing other punishments. I'll have to think about this a bit more, however.

[Ossitania]

We approve wholeheartedly of the latest redraft.

[Pollepao]

We of the Republic of Pollepao approve of this new draft.

[Moronist Decisions]

SP, we approve of the intentions and principles, but we believe that this would lead to a severe problem: there are some works that simply should be considered to be illegal to acquire in our opinions.

- The storage of printed state secrets, private data, etc on your desk at home would be perfectly legal.
- Those who are found to have bootleg copies of upcoming public exams cannot be prosecuted for compromising national exams.

Could you please comment on this?

Thanks.

[Christian Democrats]

How to Make a Dirty Bomb

We would not want a book such as this being possessed by anyone.