[DEFEATED] Freedom Of Language Act (by South St Maarten)

[Deropia]

Freedom Of Language Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: South St Maarten

Whereas peoples have been denied the right to publish text in certain languages:

And whereas the denial of that right is a violation of the freedom of expression:

And whereas publishing text in different languages can help peoples understand the text better,

Therefore, be it enacted by the excellent World Assembly, with the imperative consent and advice of the delegates and members, in the session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

All member states must allow all persons to publish text in any language

All member states must allow all persons to put up signage in any language

All member states will be encouraged to enforce this resolution

Here comes another one without a drafting thread....

[Imperium Anglorum]

The standard title would be something like: [IN QUEUE] Freedom Of Language Act (by South St Maarten)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

The Burkean ambassador looks up from reading the queued proposal. "Morgana and Circe preserve me. There might have been something to this if the author had gone through a period of drafting and revising in committee."

"Very well, in no particular order our objections to this:

• Primo, we don't actually have any problem with linguistic diversity as such, and would be happy to support a proposal properly drafted to promote the same in a responsible matter.
• Secundo, as practitioners of strict textualism, the first operative phrase is overly broad. Mandating that ANY person be allowed to publish is going a hell of a lot further than allowing linguistic pluralism. We have no intention of allowing known international terrorist and agitator Max Berry to publish in ANY language.
• Tertio, the second operative phrase needs tightening. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a State might, at least to some extent, mandate mono-lingual signage. In our own State, for instance, emergency instruction signage is very strictly defined and mandated, including the languages in which it is printed (specifically our national language, English, and French). The second operative clause is somewhat vague as to whether that would be permitted.
• Quarto, the final operative phrase is redundant, and meaningless. The resolution has mandated two things. There's no encouraging compliance needed. Though, come to it, what kind of encouragement does the author envision?
• Quinto, while a personal complaint, we found the language used in the proposal to be difficult to render. We believe we have a reasonable grasp of English grammar and syntax, but the formulation of the enacting clause caused us to introduce our head to the floor a few times.

[Ferret Civilization]

The standard title would be something like: [IN QUEUE] Freedom Of Language Act (by South St Maarten)

Standard, there was a standard for proposals not drafted or even presented by the writer for titles in the WA. Wow, that is something, this kind of situation really is becoming the new trend now, hopefully not the future normal procedure.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Oh for fuck's sake not again.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Standard, there was a standard for proposals not drafted or even presented by the writer for titles in the WA. Wow, that is something, this kind of situation really is becoming the new trend now, hopefully not the future normal procedure.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with a lack of drafting on this forum. I see a problem with a lack of drafting in general.

---

However, for those seeking Legality Challenge solutions™ (who know exactly who they are and use brackets like this) they could probably challenge on the basis of contradiction with the provisions in GA c. 30 'Freedom of Expression', which provides for member states to set limits on expression in its Allows clause.

Furthermore, one could ask some interesting questions about the realm of compliance vis-à-vis the last clause, encouraging members to enforce a resolution. Are not members already required to enforce all resolutions?

[Ferret Civilization]

Yeah I suppose lack of drafting here is not much of a problem, though it would be a little courtesy to post whatever one submits with a note or something they do not care for feedback here they have handled that offsite.

[Willania Imperium]

Freedom Of Language Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: South St Maarten

Whereas peoples have been denied the right to publish text in certain languages:

And whereas the denial of that right is a violation of the freedom of expression:

And whereas publishing text in different languages can help peoples understand the text better,

Therefore, be it enacted by the excellent World Assembly, with the imperative consent and advice of the delegates and members, in the session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

All member states must allow all persons to publish text in any language

All member states must allow all persons to put up signage in any language

All member states will be encouraged to enforce this resolution

Here comes another one without a drafting thread....

"Oh, boy. A proposal not drafted, surprisingly short, and seems to be just about getting a medal than actually be helpful. That's gonna be a good thing. God, I hate lemmings."

[Imperial Polk County]

"Hang on a moment. Signs can be in any language? So if some podunk town wanted to post its speed limit signs in, I don't know, some French Creole dialect, just so they could line their coffers by fining unsuspecting speeders, we couldn't stop them from doing that. This proposal would force us to repeal laws that say traffic signs and such must be in our native English."

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

It will be an easy job, he said. Just hanging around with erudite speakers working on noble, well crafted legislation, he said. Lies, all of it lies.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

However, for those seeking Legality Challenge solutions™ (who know exactly who they are and use brackets like this) they could probably challenge on the basis of contradiction with the provisions in GA c. 30 'Freedom of Expression', which provides for member states to set limits on expression in its Allows clause.

Furthermore, one could ask some interesting questions about the realm of compliance vis-à-vis the last clause, encouraging members to enforce a resolution. Are not members already required to enforce all resolutions?

OOC: All opinions mine only, of course.

The former question: the proposal doesn't say "without any restriction," it just doesn't happen to mention any. I have to interpret the possible restrictions laid out in GAR #30 to still be available if this passes. The operative clause states that the language of the text or sign must not be restricted, not that there may be no restrictions whatsoever. The WA doesn't have a Son of Sam law, so "all persons" doesn't contradict anything either.

The latter question: this clause is at worst minor overlap and thus not actionable.

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

"Hang on a moment. Signs can be in any language? So if some podunk town wanted to post its speed limit signs in, I don't know, some French Creole dialect, just so they could line their coffers by fining unsuspecting speeders, we couldn't stop them from doing that. This proposal would force us to repeal laws that say traffic signs and such must be in our native English."

On the other side of the coin, traffic signs could become billboards in order to incorporate as many languages as possible while offering plenty of places for police to hide and/or take naps.

[Fauxia]

“I mean... really?”

[Deropia]

“I mean... really?”

"Unfortunately..."

[Serrus]

OOC: How exactly does one manage to get it into the queue without drafting?

[Ferret Civilization]

OOC: How exactly does one manage to get it into the queue without drafting?

OOC: Campaign for it through telegrams to all the delegates, can usually get rubber stamped through that way. More so than usually now.

[Serrus]

OOC: How exactly does one manage to get it into the queue without drafting?

OOC: Campaign for it through telegrams to all the delegates, can usually get rubber stamped through that way. More so than usually now.

That's cheesier than actual cheese.

[States of Glory WA Office]

The operative clause states that the language of the text or sign must not be restricted, not that there may be no restrictions whatsoever.

OOC: What's the difference?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The operative clause states that the language of the text or sign must not be restricted, not that there may be no restrictions whatsoever.

OOC: What's the difference?

You can post signs in English, Swahili, Klingon, machine code, Esperanto, or West Bumfuckese per this proposal; that does not prevent restrictions unrelated to language, such as inciting people to commit crimes. You can arrest the guys conspiring in Klingon to rob a bank by coordinating their plans on public signage in plain sight; but not for using Klingon signage, only for the actual conspiracy to commit the robbery.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: What's the difference?

You can post signs in English, Swahili, Klingon, machine code, Esperanto, or West Bumfuckese per this proposal; that does not prevent restrictions unrelated to language, such as inciting people to commit crimes. You can arrest the guys conspiring in Klingon to rob a bank by coordinating their plans on public signage in plain sight; but not for using Klingon signage, only for the actual conspiracy to commit the robbery.

OOC: 'All member states must allow all persons to publish text in any language'.

The clause is unqualified. Banning incitement to commit a crime means that we are not 'allow[ing] all persons to publish text in any language' and is thus a violation of this clause. A prior resolution explicitly allows us to ban incitement to commit crime. Therefore, this proposal is contradictory.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It doesn't say people may publish any text they want, it says they may publish in any language. The UK may not suppress Welsh, nor China Tibetan; but that doesn't make them obligated to allow Welsh or Tibetan incitements to violence. I don't see how you leap from "may publish (or post signage) in any language" to "may post anything they want whatsoever."

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: We are required to allow everyone to publish text in any language. The right isn't qualified through the use of a phrase such as 'legal text' or 'text that doesn't contradict extant WA legislation'. Placing any restrictions on free expression means that we are not allowing everyone to publish text in any language. I don't know; this just seems so straightforward to me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think I concur with SL on this. The most reasonable interpretation of the resolution from the national perspective is that the 'right' is not unqualified. However, I would argue that the unqualified interpretation certainly falls within the reasonable interpretive space.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PROposal is at vote.

[Charlock]

As the proposal stands, I cannot in good faith vote towards this proposal.

My reasoning behind my negative vote are...

1) The proposal is way too broad -- As written, "Any Language" could be construed to include encryption, cyphers & other heavily niche or proprietary languages where only a select few would ever known or understand.

There's nothing to state any standard definition of language within the resolution.

2) Potential to promote terrorism in plain sight -- As the proposal states that nations must allow all signage & text to be published in any language, it makes it highly probable that terrorists could freely release publications & post signs to terrorist sympathizers by using an obscure or proprietary language that law enforcement & counter-terrorism units may not be able to acknowledge.

While I will concede that terrorists would normally take more care with communications, the WA should not make it easier for them to do so.

3) Potential abuse as a legal loophole to national laws & WA resolutions -- Anything written in a proprietary language can be manipulated with "creative translation" when there's no established standard for such a language. Something that could have been written as a death threat by an attempted murderer could be translated as a love note & fall into the realm of hearsay when few, know the rules of said language.

One example is with GA 408: Ban on Secret Treaties -- While this resolution requires treaties to be public, this proposal would allow both country to publicize such treaty in an unknown or proprietary language (like Binary Unicode Esperanto; while highly impractical in written form, is a possibility) so only those who wrote it would officially know the contents of said treaty.

4) Potential confusion to the public -- By allowing anybody to publish anything in any language, we'll eventually hit the "Tower of Babel" situation where comprehension drops to an unproductive level. While I am not against written publications to be any officially recognized language, public signage should include a nationally acceptable translation to maintain the function those signs provide.


Unless there is a current resolution that compliments or supplements the proposal to help reduce or eliminate these concerns, I fear this proposal will cause more harm than good.