[PASSED] Freedom to Read and Learn

[Sionis Prioratus]

Nations shall carve exceptions for materials forbidden by the World Assembly and may carve exceptions for private biographical records, autobiographical works intended to remain private by the author, unauthorized copies of upcoming tests, materials not intended for the duration of a test, materials obtained by espionage, and/or materials subject to professional confidentiality, as well as for knowingly receiving stolen materials.

I like it.

We agree, we concur! New draft:

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 material adapted for individuals with disabilities, subject to the following exceptions:

Nations shall carve exceptions for materials forbidden by the World Assembly and may carve exceptions for private biographical records, autobiographical works intended to remain private by the author, unauthorized copies of upcoming tests, materials not intended for the duration of a test, materials subject to professional confidentiality, materials obtained by espionage, as well as for knowingly receiving stolen materials.

[Linux and the X]

Perhaps the list of exceptions ought be eliminated. It seems more reasonable for the exceptions to be handled as exceptions to free speech, not to free consumption thereof.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Perhaps the list of exceptions ought be eliminated. It seems more reasonable for the exceptions to be handled as exceptions to free speech, not to free consumption thereof.

The first draft did not contain them. They were added as concessions. Out of deference and respect for the fellow Ambassadors who suggested them, and who have been so diligent and helpful in drafting this text, we are strongly inclined to keep them. We believe they are moderate, commonsense exceptions.

Yours in politicking,

[Linux and the X]

Perhaps the list of exceptions ought be eliminated. It seems more reasonable for the exceptions to be handled as exceptions to free speech, not to free consumption thereof.

The first draft did not contain them. They were added as concessions. Out of deference and respect for the fellow Ambassadors who suggested them, and who have been so diligent and helpful in drafting this text, we are strongly inclined to keep them. We believe they are moderate, commonsense exceptions.

Yours in politicking,

Ah, but rather than listing individual exceptions ("everything is legal to read, except this"), the approach should simply be based on free speech ("everything that can legally be printed can be legally read").

[Sionis Prioratus]

The first draft did not contain them. They were added as concessions. Out of deference and respect for the fellow Ambassadors who suggested them, and who have been so diligent and helpful in drafting this text, we are strongly inclined to keep them. We believe they are moderate, commonsense exceptions.

Yours in politicking,

Ah, but rather than listing individual exceptions ("everything is legal to read, except this"), the approach should simply be based on free speech ("everything that can legally be printed can be legally read").

Ah, we understand it now Your Excellency. We admit it is an intriguing approach. We would like the input of other delegations on this!

Yours very, very intrigued,

[Tribes Republic]

Ah, but rather than listing individual exceptions ("everything is legal to read, except this"), the approach should simply be based on free speech ("everything that can legally be printed can be legally read").

Ah, we understand it now Your Excellency. We admit it is an intriguing approach. We would like the input of other delegations on this!

Yours very, very intrigued,

So it would be legal to read government documents, but I suggest that instead just let this resolution make it legal and if a nation wants to make anything illegal to read they can state so in their own laws if it were done that way a nation could not claim this as a conflict of interest.

[Bears Armed]

If that's "printed and released with the intention that it be publicly available" so that governments can still print genuinely 'confidential' material for use by some of their own employees without having to drop the 'confidentiality' aspect, and there's still a possible exception for material obtained by theft (including breach of copyright)/fraud/espionage, and also with a clause allowing exceptions in situations where international law actually allows or even requires member nations to restrict fredom of expression (so that people wouldn't have a right to read material whose printing had actually been illegal under one of those exceptions, e.g. child pornography), then I'd be okay with that.

[Sionis Prioratus]

If that's "printed and released with the intention that it be publicly available" so that governments can still print genuinely 'confidential' material for use by some of their own employees without having to drop the 'confidentiality' aspect, and there's still a possible exception for material obtained by theft (including breach of copyright)/fraud/espionage, and also with a clause allowing exceptions in situations where international law actually allows or even requires member nations to restrict fredom of expression (so that people wouldn't have a right to read material whose printing had actually been illegal under one of those exceptions, e.g. child pornography), then I'd be okay with that.

We thank Your Excellency for Your Excellency's contribution! Just as we suspected, upon a tentative rephrasing we would still need an exceptions clause. That would increase, not decrease, the verbosity of the draft; that being the case, we would not be inclined to alter the structure of the text as suggested anymore.

Yours thankful,

[Linux and the X]

Here's a rather shorter version.

Freedom to 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 material adapted for individuals with disabilities, that was, or could have been, published legally.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Here's a rather shorter version.

Freedom to 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 material adapted for individuals with disabilities, that was, or could have been, published legally.

Hm, we quite like it Your Excellency! We have reworded it a little for fear that the addition could be seen to apply only to "reading material adapted for individuals with disabilities". What does Your Excellency and Excellencies think?

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, or could have been, published legally.

[Bears Armed]

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, or could have been, published legally.[/size][/box]

This still needs an exemption for official publications that the government concerned could "reasonably" classify as confidential/secret...

[Linux and the X]

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, or could have been, published legally.[/size][/box]

This still needs an exemption for official publications that the government concerned could "reasonably" classify as confidential/secret...

We believe that information classification only applies to those cleared to read it; if a cleared individual releases it, they can be charged, but those it is released to may freely republish and release it (OOC: see NYT v. Sullivan).

[Bears Armed]

This still needs an exemption for official publications that the government concerned could "reasonably" classify as confidential/secret...

We believe that information classification only applies to those cleared to read it; if a cleared individual releases it, they can be charged, but those it is released to may freely republish and release it (OOC: see NYT v. Sullivan).

Did you miss the line in the draft that says "No person shall be punished for reading, nor for enabling oneself and/or another to read,"? That would seem to say pretty clearly that cleared individuals couldn't be charged for having released the information...

(OOC: And why should all nations have to operate under RL US law, anyway?)

[Cameroi]

cameroi whole heartedly endorses the underlying concept of this (freedom to learn) proposal.

ban no library, ban no book, ban no school, unless it advocates causing needless, useless, and inexcusable harm.

we would go even further in mandating all governments to facilitate to the fullest extent within their capacity, the access of all persons to all useful information.
that the ownership of information, all information, but especially useful information, be universally public.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We thank Your Excellencies for the very welcome and important points raised! That said, what about:

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, or could have been, legally published with the intention that it be publicly available.

Yours drinking a martini,

[Bears Armed]

Okay.

[Discoveria]

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, or could have been, legally published with the intention that it be publicly available.

"I've had a quick glance through the transcript of the debate here," said Matthew, "so apologies if my concern has been raised - but I believe that the latest wording sets a very vague and unenforceable standard. It could be difficult or impossible to establish that any published material was published "with the intention that it be publicly available". Whose intention - the author, publisher, someone else? It also seems impossible to establish that an unpublished document "could have been" legally published."

"I am inclined to think that nations are best placed to judge which material should be accessible by the public and which material should not be."

"What problem, exactly, is the Sionis Prioratus delegation attempting to solve with this legislation?"

[Sionis Prioratus]

"What problem, exactly, is the Sionis Prioratus delegation attempting to solve with this legislation?"

We hope Your Excellency is not equating the freedom to publish a book, with the freedom to own or read a book. For the two freedoms are too different indeed. Whilst the World Assembly has (rightfully) protected freedom of expression, the freedom to own or read a book is not currently protected at all. That is a problem, and we intend to tackle it.

Many people have been arrested for simply owning or reading a book. That is immoral, inhuman and therefore unacceptable.

"I am inclined to think that nations are best placed to judge which material should be accessible by the public and which material should not be."

We happen to agree with Your Excellency, which is exactly why the World Assembly has (rightfully) seen it fit to place sensible restrictions on publishing through “Freedom of Expression”:

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;

I believe that the latest wording sets a very vague and unenforceable standard. It could be difficult or impossible to establish that any published material was published "with the intention that it be publicly available". Whose intention - the author, publisher, someone else?

The author, who would then choose to publish or not to publish. The authoring of works does not imply that such works will necessarily be published, as in the case of personal diaries and/or medical/police files, we hope Your Excellency would agree.

It also seems impossible to establish that an unpublished document "could have been" legally published."

That is fine and germane, Your Excellency. We believe the words “could have been” could be excised without detriment to the draft.

Yours training martial arts,

[Sionis Prioratus]

We would like to thank all the Delegates who, either spontaneously or convinced by the TG campaign, have lent their approval to this humble endeavor:

Approvals: 80 (Three Weasels, Northern-Peoples, Thesum, Milograd, Ventei, Marceant, Todd McCloud, United Confederation of states, CORN, The Union of Myanmar, The Enclave of by and for Delinquents, Marxist-Feminists, East Klent, Makaivellia, Feux, Bandz A Make Her Dance, Teaurnai, The Western Isles of Naybra, Terrasis, CoolLand, So i herd you liek mudkipz, The Humanist Federation, Jnania, Vancovaria, Foyera, Dhul-Qarnayn, Steel Talons, Khanatah, Petrovskas, United Marxist Nations, Suceavija, Vashtanaraada, Netherheim, Blackpool Lights, Liukangladesh, The Serbian Empire, Fortunati, Esperius, Sokolovka, Altaslavia, General Hammond, Aurumaquaria, Maeamian, DGAS, Nordvegr, The North Polish Union, Honkong, United Greater France, Hercosk, The Happiness Islands, Ethanthova, Oneracon, Bhavva, Hjedium, Iberia Rebolucionaria, Great Zavi, Pewor, BearNation, Mikeswill, Towson, Tamisia, Stetsastan, Prima Humanitas, Moral Raiders, Dazchan, Mint Slice, Mad Jack, Slavotska, The Anglo People, Sha Tin, Xuycaria, Alsted, Anarchyst, Bears Armed Mission, Luchdearg, Proletaurus, The Holy, State of Conpatraia, Great Holy Prussia, Isalenoria)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Again, immense thanks also to all the Ambassadors who have helped perfect this text over time.

Yours awed,

[Ossitania]

Oh man. If similar success is experienced by Devolution of Stolen Art, this will be another feather in the already peacock-like cap of the delegation from Sionis Prioratus.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The idea behind this resolution is good, but we cannot see how it can ever be effective. Governments that punish their people for reading a certain book tend to have banned the publication of that book in the first place. So the "freedom" relies on extant freedoms of expression and the press. And while the freedom of the press, as established by the World Assembly, covers without limit news media, the freedom of expression contains provisions allowing governments to limit free expression that can cause widespread lawlessness and disorder. That is a fairly low barrier to climb over, especially given that the World Assembly has no court of human rights to strike down oppression. Therefore, this resolution will not be at all effective.

Given that, it is a harmless resolution to our government, which does not practice the banning of any literature. We will vote for this if it reaches the floor, but we also hope that the authoring delegation will revisit the wording before then.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Eloian]

It is the position of Eloian that this proposal does, in fact, hold weight concerning the issues it brings up. However, despite our agreement with the proposal, it seems that it is light in several areas.

First, the proposal does not specify whether or not the WA is prohibiting the punishment of somebody for reading at all (which is absurd), or for reading something specific(such as classified documents). The latter of which implies that the WA prohibits nations from restricting the access to information by it's citizens. This can lead to many problems, especially in a world that is increasingly digitized and therefore more susceptible to hackers. I, for one, would not want my citizens, and consequently my enemies, to know where my troops will be positioned before those troops do.

Second, the proposal states that the WA does not require nations "...to regulate or ban certain works..." What is this supposed to even mean? Especially when it starts with a "RECOGNIZES..." I, for one think that if it recognizes something else, then this proposal is meaningless because previous legislation concerning the matter has already taken place. And there is no mention of the requirement to ban certain works anywhere else in the proposal, so i see no use for this in the proposal, unless this is part of it's main idea. In this case it needs more explanation.

Third, the grammar on that last part seemed slightly off, implying that people with disabilities have equal right to access information as much as anyone else, which is totally legitimate, despite the huge pains it would put on governments to put road signs in Braille. Also the modifier, that is "...individuals with disabilities, provided that the material was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available." the placement of the modifier (in red) implies that the adapted material for individuals with disabilities must be legal and publicly available. Of course this is true, but the placement of the modifier does not suggest that this applies to anything not adapted for individuals with disabilities. Of course you may point out that while it does not suggest it, it means it. In this case I would say that the technical placement of the modifier is incorrect and therefore unsuitable for WA action. Don't worry though, my grammar is no picnic either.

In the end, this is a great proposal (except for where it isn't) and I definitely agree with the direction it goes in. It just needs more cleaning up and specificity.
-Eloian

[Parti Ouvrier]

I was going to support this freedom of information resolution, but exceptions such as ' materials obtained by espionage,' nullify that, it just encourages the secret state apparatus, which is anathema to freedom of information.

Abstain

Darren Cahil

[Delegate Vinage]

Curious and require further clarification on this part of proposal:

....provided that the material was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available.

So if the Minister of Finance's Aide Dave, without permission for those above him, leaked information from within the Government and due to laws of secrecy etc that information shouldn't have been leaked but has now found itself in the printed press - what happens there? Everyone who bought, or read, that newspaper can be persecuted?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

We vote FOR this proposal. Like other foundation proposals that this Assembly has passed from time to time, this Act will firmly proclaim the World Assembly's position on the right of individuals to read and learn.

I must say that I preferred earlier versions of the proposal that included enumerated exceptions to a more concrete freedom. The matter at vote does indeed establish a freedom to learn and read, but only "provided that the material was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available." Scurrilous nations could use the general nature of this language to essentially erode the freedom, by enacting strict regulations of what may be "legally published," and punishing severely those who would dare to read illegally published materials.

That said, we approve the aims of this act and we are sure it will have a significant, positive effect on the rights and freedoms of individuals all over the world.