NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:12 am**

Aelyria wrote:What happens when the Artistic Expression law explicitly says something can't be protected, but the Political Expression law explicitly says that exact same thing is protected speech?

In that case, one of them would be ruled illegal for duplication, and would not be able to be passed.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:14 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Aelyria wrote:What happens when the Artistic Expression law explicitly says something can't be protected, but the Political Expression law explicitly says that exact same thing is protected speech?
In that case, one of them would be ruled illegal for duplication, and would not be able to be passed.

I think in this case, contradiction, but there would not be conflict.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:23 am**

Second post to avoid noob quoting. South Carolina: You need to read the ruleset. The standards for proposals are not set by the WA body as awhile. I can not overturn them, nor can any caucus with any proportion of the vote (though people constantly keep accusing me of trying). The Secretariat determines what they are and enforces them.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:45 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I can't mention them. They're OOC. Doing so would be metagaming.

That's the problem, you can't mention them but you basically assume them.
You could have mentioned a concern that the use of "persons" implies "corporations" and then everything makes sense.
But that's water under the bridge.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:46 am**

Dirty Americans wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I can't mention them. They're OOC. Doing so would be metagaming.

That's the problem, you can't mention them but you basically assume them.
You could have mentioned a concern that the use of "persons" implies "corporations" and then everything makes sense.
But that's water under the bridge.

It does though. It says that in the first clause after “The World Assembly”. I’ll certainly admit it’s somewhat implied by the grouping of corporation and legal person, and could have been clearer.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:04 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
State of SouthCarolina wrote:
Thank you for the clarification of the law. Again the WA sets the standards. You and your caucus have done away with those standards. I wish you all the success in the world for the plan that you have in mind because it benefits my ideals. I feel strongly about the Freedom Of Expression. I have made that clear.

Ooc: it's nice to see the hit-and-run posters still don't understand the theory behind repeals.

To be fair, it's comparatively difficult to distinguish between a repeal/replace attempt and a genuine opposition to the target's principles when the repeal author doesn't draft the repeal and doesn't offer a replacement.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:12 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: it's nice to see the hit-and-run posters still don't understand the theory behind repeals.

To be fair, it's comparatively difficult to distinguish between a repeal/replace attempt and a genuine opposition to the target's principles when the repeal author doesn't draft the repeal and doesn't offer a replacement.

Ooc: but the repeal text sure helps to clarify. I wish players realized repeals are not generally submitted to enact the exact opposite policy the target resolution enacted.

State of SouthCarolina wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Ooc: it's nice to see the hit-and-run posters still don't understand the theory behind repeals.

It is sad to see that only the usual nations engage in conversation in the forums and the new states posts are far and view and between. Maybe it is because of shots like this one coming from S.P.

That might be true if the comments were genuine misunderstandings and not malicious attempts to smear. Like yours.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:38 pm**

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:41 pm**

The World Assembly Office gives this resolution full support. We vote FOR, in favor of the repeal of "Freedom of Expression."

World Assembly Office

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:35 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: but the repeal text sure helps to clarify. I wish players realized repeals are not generally submitted to enact the exact opposite policy the target resolution enacted.

Should have included the old boilerplate I used to use:

Reminding itself that legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal,

And perhaps add in the future

Reminding itself that repeal of legislation does not enact policies of any kind, but merely rescinds targeted policies,

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:41 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: but the repeal text sure helps to clarify. I wish players realized repeals are not generally submitted to enact the exact opposite policy the target resolution enacted.

Should have included the old boilerplate I used to use:

Reminding itself that legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal,

And perhaps add in the future

Reminding itself that repeal of legislation does not enact policies of any kind, but merely rescinds targeted policies,

I really doubt any of that would have helped. Simply because "Repeal Freedom of Expression," even if it enacts no other legislation, is explicitly the removal of legal protections for literally the most fundamental right someone can have in society. It doesn't matter if you have a noble reason for it; it frankly doesn't even matter if things would be 100%, perfectly guaranteed to improve as a result of this repeal.

It really, truly just looks like "we don't give a shit about protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the free exercise of religion, so we're just gonna stop protecting that."

Posted: **Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:02 pm**

My issue here is that, though the intention is to curb fraud, the 'little people' so to speak will be harmed. Afraid that their government will soon decide what they can and can not say or think, worried to talk now that their protection to do so is lost. Rather than removing freedom of expression, let us place stricter repercussions for lying to consumers. Let us make knowledge public so people can find out themselves if others are lying. I am voting against a repeal.

Posted: **Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:43 pm**

Kilfren wrote:let us place stricter repercussions for lying to consumers

Contradiction rule says we can't do that while this resolution is in place.

Posted: **Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:04 pm**

Repeal "Freedom of Expression" was passed 13,250 votes to 3,681.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:46 pm**

In a nation where you live with Freedom Expression, this does not mean the content specified can be denied. Broadcasters, businesses, and other organizations that are not owned by a public entity of the majority can choose to not broadcast it. Plus, this could end up as an excuse for government entities, do not have content publicized, that they do not 'approve', even it is on a small scale now. This could become a snowball down a hill. In short, it is entirely unnecessary and is possible for governments to take power from the citizens.

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom of Expression"

[AT VOTE] Repeal "Freedom of Expression"

Alternative Solution to Repeal