[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom of Expression"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Jebs, if you’re so concerned about Abrahamic theocracies, then go write your own replacement that doesn’t do those things. Part of the point of repeal is to seriously reopen and allow for reexamination of this part of law, in the same way that repeal of CoCR would achieve. This is an invitation for you to make your mark, a la GA 1. Well, unless you’re not up for it. inb4 non sequiturs about double posts.

[Dirty Americans]

As a founding member of the SPERGDR (Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Reading the God Dammed Resolution) I either have to congratulate I.A. for the snake oil presentation of this repeal or start working on the resolution to prohibit whatever it is the ambassador is taking from use during meetings of this assembly.

GAR #30 "Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly"

GAR #30 has nothing to do with advertisement regulations. It has nothing to do with corporations (although if a company has a moral view it has every right to express it). It has nothing to do with product placement or product advertising. In fact it doesn't have anything to do with publication and distribution. In short there is not a single thing in the repeal text that even remotely applies to the resolution. The repeal breaks down to the old joke argument, "think of the children."

You may have the right to your own views, but you don't have the right to your own, clearly false, facts.

STRONGLY OPPOSED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

Jebs, if you’re so concerned about Abrahamic theocracies, then go write your own replacement that doesn’t do those things. Part of the point of repeal is to seriously reopen and allow for reexamination of this part of law, in the same way that repeal of CoCR would achieve. This is Ann invitation for you to make your mark, a la GA 1. Well, unless you’re not up for it.

So you are admitting you wrote a shit repeal because you couldn't think of a proper reason to throw this resolution off of the books?

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you think the interpretation of the target here is wrong, so much so to be ‘clearly false’, then I refer you to the legality challenge and the Honest Mistake rule.

[Dirty Americans]

If you think the interpretation of the target here is wrong, so much so to be ‘clearly false’, then I refer you to the legality challenge and the Honest Mistake rule.

OK, if you insist.

(And I was so looking forward to not visiting this forum for another week.)

[Ultra Memia]

I'm not against.

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, champion the safeguarding of free expression as outlined in the original resolution. The original resolution makes no mention of protecting false advertising by corporations, but rather protects individual rights to political, cultural, religious, or ideological expression in print and other media. For this reason, We hereby vote AGAINST this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tzors, my impetus from repeal comes from two sources, discussions about ABF’s tobacco legislation and Sep and CD’s readings on the resolution in the past. I think both are quite clear. And Sep drafted a repeal of the resolution in the past. Before this resolution was submitted, I procured from him permission to move ahead with my draft (since he did have dibs, and as an author, I think it’s a good norm to keep around).

But if you think I have dishonest intentions in repeal of FoE, then just say so. And give some justification for it. Your inability to trace the causes of events (or really, events writ large) is of little relevance to me until you start making unbalanced claims of malfeasance.

[Uan aa Boa]

Corporations are people. If the resolution wanted it to apply to biological persons only, ie not legal persons, then it would have said individuals.

You still have a problem with ordinary language usage since, as you yourself demonstrate above, the plural of legal person is legal persons. The words persons and people are not freely interchangeable without loss of meaning. GA 30 talks about people and I've never heard the term legal people used to mean what you want it to mean here. Nor, if I were to ask you how many people there are in the USA, would you understand me to be asking for the number of humans plus the number of corporations and other legal entities headquartered there, although this would be a reasonable answer if I asked for the number of persons. "Microsoft, Apple and other people" is a counterintuitive construction. In short, a reasonable person coming fresh to GA 30 without the benefit of this discussion would be likely to conclude its was referring to natural persons, especially considering that resolutions are required to be written in non-technical English.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Uh huh. I refer you to the challenge thead if you’re really that interested in this boring discussion.

[New Ciencia]

I very much support this resolution and have already voted in favour of it; however, "Repeal: Freedom of Expression" seems like a very unfortunate name.

[Krennia]

So now we allow dictatorships to violate freedom of expression. Good job everyone. Krennia votes against the motion.

[North Saitama]

Kita-Saitama wholly opposes and condemns this proposal, on the grounds that its justifications are shaky and/or justify authoritarian measures under the abstract guise of "public safety", and its research of the resolution at hand is faulty, all while using "evil" corporations as a cartoonish bogeyman.

Furthermore, Kita-Saitama expresses its dismay that such a resolution has been blindly voted upon by many nations, seemingly without bothering to research the resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

however, "Repeal: Freedom of Expression" seems like a very unfortunate name.

Very much so. Imagine 'Repeal "The Existence of Fluffy and Cuddly Kittens"'.

[Kinth]

Tzors, my impetus from repeal comes from two sources, discussions about ABF’s tobacco legislation and Sep and CD’s readings on the resolution in the past. I think both are quite clear. And Sep drafted a repeal of the resolution in the past. Before this resolution was submitted, I procured from him permission to move ahead with my draft (since he did have dibs, and as an author, I think it’s a good norm to keep around).

But if you think I have dishonest intentions in repeal of FoE, then just say so. And give some justification for it. Your inability to trace the causes of events (or really, events writ large) is of little relevance to me until you start making unbalanced claims of malfeasance.

Considering your own nation, while it does have an extremely good record on both civil rights and political freedoms, it is not unblemished, as your own nation outlaws political groups that are too far from center, also known as extreme political groups. This, to the nation of Kinth indicates you may use its absence to censor your own people who are sympathetic to political groups your government does not agree with. While the nation of Kinth is at odds with extreme political opinions, we have chosen not to restrict them, their supporters, or their speech, in the name of freedom of expression.

In addition to the above indicating you may have dishonest intentions, another indicator is your apathy and attitude to those in this discussion who have pointed out legitimate concerns about this repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tzors, my impetus from repeal comes from two sources, discussions about ABF’s tobacco legislation and Sep and CD’s readings on the resolution in the past. I think both are quite clear. And Sep drafted a repeal of the resolution in the past. Before this resolution was submitted, I procured from him permission to move ahead with my draft (since he did have dibs, and as an author, I think it’s a good norm to keep around).

But if you think I have dishonest intentions in repeal of FoE, then just say so. And give some justification for it. Your inability to trace the causes of events (or really, events writ large) is of little relevance to me until you start making unbalanced claims of malfeasance.

Considering your own nation, while it does have an extremely good record on both civil rights and political freedoms, it is not unblemished, as your own nation outlaws political groups that are too far from center, also known as extreme political groups. This, to the nation of Kinth indicates you may use its absence to censor your own people who are sympathetic to political groups your government does not agree with. While the nation of Kinth is at odds with extreme political opinions, we have chosen not to restrict them, their supporters, or their speech, in the name of freedom of expression.

In addition to the above indicating you may have dishonest intentions, another indicator is your apathy and attitude to those in this discussion who have pointed out legitimate concerns about this repeal.

Uh huh.

My interest in this repeal has nothing to do with statistics or with roleplay. It has solely to do with the ability for the Assembly to pass legislation on topics on which this resolution stops us from passing resolutions. My nation isn't going to change anything (I've stopped answering Issues for years now) and I don't really intend to change anything in my RP either. I don't care about those things. I care about allowing GA authors to write proposals regulating commercial speech.

[Kinth]

Uh huh.

Kinth commends you on comparing a nation that is less than a week old with less than 10 million citizens to one that appears have been around a lot longer, and able to decide on more issues. Nice whataboutism. Also, nice job editing your response as this one was being posted. If this repeal passes, Kinth will leave the WA in protest.

[North Saitama]

Considering your own nation, while it does have an extremely good record on both civil rights and political freedoms, it is not unblemished, as your own nation outlaws political groups that are too far from center, also known as extreme political groups. This, to the nation of Kinth indicates you may use its absence to censor your own people who are sympathetic to political groups your government does not agree with. While the nation of Kinth is at odds with extreme political opinions, we have chosen not to restrict them, their supporters, or their speech, in the name of freedom of expression.

In addition to the above indicating you may have dishonest intentions, another indicator is your apathy and attitude to those in this discussion who have pointed out legitimate concerns about this repeal.

Uh huh.

My interest in this repeal has nothing to do with statistics or with roleplay. It has solely to do with the ability for the Assembly to pass legislation on topics on which this resolution stops us from passing resolutions. My nation isn't going to change anything (I've stopped answering Issues for years now) and I don't really intend to change anything in my RP either. I don't care about those things. I care about allowing GA authors to write proposals regulating commercial speech.

That is the problem: the original resolution already addresses this sufficiently. Beyond that is too restrictive for a WA resolution, and is best left to the individual nation to decide.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That is the problem: the original resolution already addresses this sufficiently. Beyond that is too restrictive for a WA resolution, and is best left to the individual nation to decide.

No, it doesn't.

EDIT 1: I'll be clear. FoE stops the Assembly, and member nations (who (1) possess no sovereignty at all insofar as they are members of the Assembly and the Assembly has not yet taken away their ability to do something and (2) are members of an Assembly with plenary authority), from regulating commercial speech, which is necessarily broad, or promulgation of 'watershed' requirements.

The game is better served by being able to debate and have meaningful discussions about those topics. My repeal is about making that happen. Whether you want to read in some sort of conspiracy theory-esque plot to destroy people's ability to express themselves is of no concern. The citizens of member nations do not exist. There are no people whose so-called rights are being infringed, but those who cannot pass legislation or engage in meaningful debate about meaningful topics due to the restrictions of the ruleset.

EDIT 2: My actual view on the topic is almost entirely agnostic. I can see arguments to both sides. I also don't see them as at all relevant in this context. Rather, what matters are the combination of two things: (1) the contradiction rule and (2) the inability to amend this legislation. For, if the contradiction rule existed, I wouldn't be proposing this. And, if we could amend the legislation, I too wouldn't be proposing this.

[Kinth]

That is the problem: the original resolution already addresses this sufficiently. Beyond that is too restrictive for a WA resolution, and is best left to the individual nation to decide.

No, it doesn't.

EDIT: I'll be clear. FoE stops the Assembly, and member nations (who (1) possess no sovereignty at all insofar as they are members of the Assembly and the Assembly has not yet taken away their ability to do something and (2) are members of an Assembly to plenary authority), from regulating commercial speech or promulgation of 'watershed' requirements.

The game is better served by being able to debate and have meaningful discussions about those topics. My repeal is about making that happen. Whether you want to read in some sort of conspiracy theory-esque plot to destroy people's ability to express themselves is of no concern. The citizens of member nations do not exist. There are no people whose so-called rights are being infringed, but those who cannot pass legislation or engage in meaningful debate about meaningful topics due to the restrictions of the ruleset.

So in one sense, you're trying to improve RP, debates, and the ability to discuss certain possible proposals, while also saying the citizens of nations don't exist. Admittedly, yes, they are fictional, but isn't that the whole point of NS to begin with? To simulate a government, and how its actions affect its citizens? You're saying because they are fictional, it doesn't matter whether they have rights or not. Okay. But the same can be argued for these debates, the WA itself, and all its resolutions. They are fictional and have no bearing on the real world.

What I read from what you just said, you want to improve the part of the game you still take part in (as under your own admission, you now ignore all issues in your Nation), regardless of the implications it has on other areas of the game. That is how I read what your saying anyways... please correct me if I am wrong.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So in one sense, you're trying to improve RP, debates, and the ability to discuss certain possible proposals, while also saying the citizens of nations don't exist. Admittedly, yes, they are fictional, but isn't that the whole point of NS to begin with? To simulate a government, and how its actions affect its citizens? You're saying because they are fictional, it doesn't matter whether they have rights or not. Okay. But the same can be argued for these debates, the WA itself, and all its resolutions. They are fictional and have no bearing on the real world.

They have bearing on the real world of our interactions with the game, unless you are also going to tell me that the words I am typing into this forum are too fictional. If you really care about the statistics that your nation has, resign from the Assembly before it passes and rejoin after. And say that instead of 'Oh noes, you're hurting people who don't exist'.

Certainly, I also think there are important RP implications, I just don't care about them in the context of this repeal. This legislative project isn't about roleplay at all. If it were, then I would have used RP somewhere in this thread. Instead, I have written entirely out-of-character for the whole thread and have addressed every single in-character statement with out-of-character remarks. (edit: And, having checked my campaign telegram, that too was OOC.) And have decided also to forego the annoying practice of saying 'To whom is it that your ambassador is speaking?' that always comes up in OOC-IC interactions such as this. This project is about repealing a blocker that I believe is bad for the Assembly, for reasons which I communicated in the repeal itself, in my campaign telegrams, and in messages to political supporters.

Moreover, nobody is passing international legislation that will destroy freedom of expression. I wouldn't vote for it, and I don't think anyone else in any reasonable region would either. Instead, what matters is the ability to produce meaning, which winning a mass poll can do. And the ability to make more of that meaning also has to do with the breadth of what we can as players propose.

[Kinth]

So in one sense, you're trying to improve RP, debates, and the ability to discuss certain possible proposals, while also saying the citizens of nations don't exist. Admittedly, yes, they are fictional, but isn't that the whole point of NS to begin with? To simulate a government, and how its actions affect its citizens? You're saying because they are fictional, it doesn't matter whether they have rights or not. Okay. But the same can be argued for these debates, the WA itself, and all its resolutions. They are fictional and have no bearing on the real world.

They have bearing on the real world of our interactions with the game, unless you are also going to tell me that the words I am typing into this forum are too fictional. If you really care about the statistics that your nation has, resign from the Assembly before it passes and rejoin after. And say that instead of 'Oh noes, you're hurting people who don't exist'.

Certainly, I also think there are important RP implications, I just don't care about them in the context of this repeal. This legislative project isn't about roleplay. If it were, then I would have used RP somewhere in this thread. Instead, I have written entirely out-of-character for the whole thread.

Moreover, nobody is passing international legislation that will destroy freedom of expression. I wouldn't vote for it, and I don't think anyone else in any reasonable region would either. Instead, what matters is the ability to produce meaning, which winning a mass poll can do. And the ability to make more of that meaning also has to do with the breadth of what we can as players propose.

Okay, I do understand what you're saying, but you're conflicting yourself. It is my view that the entire game is fictional, including this forum, all resolutions, the whole thing. That is *part* of what makes it fun. However, while I now think that your goals with this repeal are "for the right reasons" or in other words, I no longer think they have a nefarious motive, I still do see this repeal, without something else already ready to go to vote to replace it as dangerous to WA Nations. Honestly, that has been my biggest sticking point, is the fact that this will most likely pass, and we will lose GA #30 without something to replace it, except a draft that is fundamentally flawed (the last time I read it). If there were something already prepared for vote to replace it, which re-instated Freedom of Expression, with fixes that address the reasons behind this repeal, I might be willing to support the repeal. But there is not.

*ALSO NOTE: While Kinth is a young nation, just getting started, I played NS for 3 years from 2011 to 2014, but just returned and created a new nation rather than trying to see if my old one could be re-instated... and I too get extremely annoyed with "To whom is it that your ambassador is speaking?"*

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay, I do understand what you're saying, but you're conflicting yourself. It is my view that the entire game is fictional, including this forum, all resolutions, the whole thing. That is *part* of what makes it fun. However, while I now think that your goals with this repeal are "for the right reasons" or in other words, I no longer think they have a nefarious motive, I still do see this repeal, without something else already ready to go to vote to replace it as dangerous to WA Nations. Honestly, that has been my biggest sticking point, is the fact that this will most likely pass, and we will lose GA #30 without something to replace it, except a draft that is fundamentally flawed (the last time I read it). If there were something already prepared for vote to replace it, which re-instated Freedom of Expression, with fixes that address the reasons behind this repeal, I might be willing to support the repeal. But there is not.

I'm not conflicting myself insofar as you have an attachment to the importance of fiction that I, in this context at least, don't have. Like, to be clear and serious and what-not, I'm repealing this legislation for entirely OOC reasons. The question of whether replacement needs to exist before a repeal is submitted, I think, should be answered in this case with No.

I see this resolution also similar to CoCR. There has been discussion on the forum to repeal CoCR simply to make room for more legislation and different legislative projects. Similarly have been discussions to repeal NEF for similar reasons. The Assembly is reaching a point where it becomes difficult to find ground that is not already tread. It is best, then, to tread ground which has only been very lightly tread in very broad strokes. This is one of those cases. And similarly is CoCR. And similarly is NEF.

A singular replacement of the target with similarly broad mandates is not something I would support. Instead, I would support smaller and more focused resolutions on subsections of expression. It would be interesting to see one on artistic expression, one on political speech, etc. This would be much more interesting and offer a lot more activity, opportunities to new players, and engender better and more focused discourse than a replacement on similarly broad grounds.

Moreover, we as a community seemingly lack the ability to engage with issues before they are actually on top of us. Nobody submits challenges until it becomes too late. Nobody gives feedback on proposals. Many GA regulars bemoan the fact that people come out of the woodworks only at vote. I wouldn't say this proposals is one of those cases (mostly because it was drafted for a very brief period, but longer than about a quarter of my passed resolutions), but it has happened to me and many authors in the past. Similarly undermanned and ignored are drafts for replacement of legislation that players do not believe will in fact be repealed. Insofar as it has been repealed, then, there will actually be legislative efforts to replace it.

But I also don't want to monopolise those efforts. Because we have a very strong norm that in the cases of repeal-replaces, ie the person who repealed it gets the ability to go first for replacing it (and go second and a third time, at least, until everyone tires of it). Furthermore, we also have strong norms about idea stealing, so much so that I didn't move ahead with this proposal until I received approval from the person who first thought of repeal as a solution for this commercial speech problem. I think these are both probably good norms in the abstract. I don't think they are good norms here, however, when the purpose of the project is to reinvigorate discourse on this topic.

EDIT: My apologies on the many edits to this text. I'm typing really fast.

[Imperial States of Burgh]

His Holy Majesty Lucian Patris V, Burghian God-Emperor, has already vetoed the resolution up for repeal, making it null and void upon the whole of the earth.

Thus, this resolution is unnecessary.

[Jebslund]

Okay, I do understand what you're saying, but you're conflicting yourself. It is my view that the entire game is fictional, including this forum, all resolutions, the whole thing. That is *part* of what makes it fun. However, while I now think that your goals with this repeal are "for the right reasons" or in other words, I no longer think they have a nefarious motive, I still do see this repeal, without something else already ready to go to vote to replace it as dangerous to WA Nations. Honestly, that has been my biggest sticking point, is the fact that this will most likely pass, and we will lose GA #30 without something to replace it, except a draft that is fundamentally flawed (the last time I read it). If there were something already prepared for vote to replace it, which re-instated Freedom of Expression, with fixes that address the reasons behind this repeal, I might be willing to support the repeal. But there is not.

I'm not conflicting myself insofar as you have an attachment to the importance of fiction that I, in this context at least, don't have. Like, to be clear and serious and what-not, I'm repealing this legislation for entirely OOC reasons. The question of whether replacement needs to exist before a repeal is submitted, I think, should be answered in this case with No.

I see this resolution also similar to CoCR. There has been discussion on the forum to repeal CoCR simply to make room for more legislation and different legislative projects. Similarly have been discussions to repeal NEF for similar reasons. The Assembly is reaching a point where it becomes difficult to find ground that is not already tread. It is best, then, to tread ground which has only been very lightly tread in very broad strokes. This is one of those cases. And similarly is CoCR. And similarly is NEF.

A singular replacement of the target with similarly broad mandates is not something I would support. Instead, I would support smaller and more focused resolutions on subsections of expression. It would be interesting to see one on artistic expression, one on political speech, etc. This would be much more interesting and offer a lot more activity, opportunities to new players, and engender better and more focused discourse than a replacement on similarly broad grounds.

Moreover, we as a community seemingly lack the ability to engage with issues before they are actually on top of us. Nobody submits challenges until it becomes too late. Nobody gives feedback on proposals. Many GA regulars bemoan the fact that people come out of the woodworks only at vote. I wouldn't say this proposals is one of those cases (mostly because it was drafted for a very brief period, but longer than about a quarter of my passed resolutions), but it has happened to me and many authors in the past. Similarly undermanned and ignored are drafts for replacement of legislation that players do not believe will in fact be repealed. Insofar as it has been repealed, then, there will actually be legislative efforts to replace it.

But I also don't want to monopolise those efforts. Because have a very strong norm that in the cases of repeal-replaces, the person who repealed it gets the ability to go first for replacing it (and go second and a third time, until everyone tires of it). Furthermore, we also have strong norms about idea stealing, so much so that I didn't move ahead with this proposal until I received approval from the person who first thought of this. I think these are both good norms in the abstract. I don't think they are good norms here, when the purpose of the project is to reinvigorate discourse on this topic.

[OOC: in response to your "Write one yourself" earlier, with LoG already in progress and multiple RPs going, I've spread myself a bit thin as is, and I already forsee LoG taking at least a month to get into anything resembling shape for submitting to the queue (and I'm, incidentally, not looking forward to the stamps the campaigning will take, but that's another matter entirely). Why I'm responding to this post and not the one addressed to me is that you listed my other reason in that last paragraph: Namely, while I disagree with UM's execution of it both in and out of character, it is still, for all intents and purposes, UM's idea, and UM hasn't finished drafting yet. I'm not eager to start drafting a second proposal UM's likely to Legality Challenge from here to the end of days (on *much* firmer grounds, I might add), especially since UM has made it clear they're not above using the LC system as a weapon, but the idea of many scalpels as opposed to one sword appeals to me. Perhaps a collaboration focusing on one such area? Commercial speech, namely, seeing as that seems to be the focus of your arguments and dovetails nicely with GA#123 and would strengthen my own LoG (in terms of business ethics surrounding advertising of gambling), perhaps?)

Sofia Kerman rises. "At this time, no legislation to replace GA#30 is pending from the Jebslund delegation. I am already in the process of drafting legislation and, with my other duties, simply do not have the time to do so singlehandedly. If the Imperium Anglorum delegation wishes to split the load, as it were, the Jebslund delegation will reconsider. As matters currently stand, however, I simply do not have the time to give such an undertaking the attention it deserves, and the United Massachusetts delegation will be long finished before the matter could even think of going to vote."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm, incidentally, not looking forward to the stamps the campaigning will take, but that's another matter entirely

I'm willing to dedicate some of one of my region's API time to campaign for any such resolution you write, should you have a draft that you believe is complete and of reasonable quality. (EDIT: Well, and doesn't block off the whole hole I just knocked through. Basically, if you have a draft that touches on some sub-section of speech, I'll be happy to lend campaign support in getting it to vote.)

I'm not sure exactly what LoG is, but I'm going to assume for this post that it is Legalisation of Gambling. I can't say that I'm much of a supporter of it, I'm not a big fan of gambling. I can't really, however, see where United Massachusetts would challenge it. Any challenge as broad as the one which he already brought would be prima facie illegal for yielding an interpretation that 'breaks', similar to but not in terms of a proposal, the blocker rule.

Repeal of the target would open for you the ability to regulate gambling adverts.