[PASSED] Protecting Free Expression

[Mallorea and Riva]

---

Protecting Free Expression
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Asserting that the most fundamental liberty of sapient individuals, freedom of thought, is rendered toothless without protecting also the outward ability to express said thought,

Contending, therefore, that freedom of expression, it being the manifestation of free thought, also stands among the foremost human rights, entitled unto all sapient creatures from birth,

Concerned especially for political dissidents, whose calls for justice and change have been cracked down on by certain, more sinister regimes,

Noting, however, that there do exist legitimate reasons to curtail free expression in situations where it infringes on other rights, such as the freedom from fraud or defamation, or hinders the peace and good order necessary for the preservation of civil society,

Bemoaning the dictatorial tendencies of those nations who would seek to include harsh limits on peaceful dissent under the banner of legitimate regulation,

Yearning, therefore, to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the right of free expression and permitting member nations to enact rational and well-meaning restrictions thereon,

This most august General Assembly, in the name of asserting the most natural rights of sapient individuals:

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
   2. "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,
2. Permits member nations to enact reasonable restrictions on peaceful free expression in those cases where the expression constitutes:
   1. defamation, as defined in section 1b,
   2. blatant and explicit pornographic material,
   3. an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness,
   4. a threat to civilian or military health or safety,
   5. perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings,
   6. the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,
   7. an infringement on private or intellectual property rights,
   8. a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation,
   
   
3. Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation,
   
   
4. Permits member states to enact reasonable restrictions in educational settings in order to better advance the functionality, safety, and effectiveness of the learning environment, presuming said restrictions are the least restrictive means by which to advance that goal,
   
   
5. Clarifies that nothing hereinabove shall be interpreted as preventing member nations from reasonably regulating campaign finance,
   
   
6. Permits member states to enact reasonable restrictions on the consumption of expression for minors.

"Name forthcoming. Also, The longest list in GA history, I'm pretty sure. Have at it, folks."

[United Massachusetts]

"Let it be known that the first edit is the addition of precisely one comma. No Kenmoria required."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Come on. Keeping adding exceptions into this thing, we'll get past the new character limit.

[United Massachusetts]

Come on. Keeping adding exceptions into this thing, we'll get past the new character limit.

"Do you have a better idea? At least I added in a general thing for moral reprehensibility, intended as a catch all."

[Attempted Socialism]

"If leaking sensitive government documents can be restricted, at least specify that if leaked to a journalist, that journalist can't be punished for putting the documents out in the open. Only the official originally leaking the government ought to risk any sort of punishment."

[Araraukar]

other explicit, blatant, and morally reprehensible forms of expression,

OOC: ...so how exactly is this an improvement to the one we have now? Except that this would be even more easily loopholed and walked over by every following resolution?

[Kenmoria]

"Clause l seems vague in that is doesn't say what constitutes “good order”."

[Uan aa Boa]

If you don't exclude true statements supported by evidence and argument, your definition of defamation is likely to permit nations to ban political criticism, investigative journalism and whistle blowing.

[Kenmoria]

"The “and” in clause g should be an “or”, otherwise member states could only prohibit people from releasing medical documents if they also released other sensitive information at the same time."

[Uan aa Boa]

Also, in your final catch-all category, morally reprehensible according to who? What do explicit and blatant mean? Is it not problematic to be morally reprehensible in an implicit and subtle way?

I understand the appeal of a miscellaneous category, but this one seems likely to be used to cover almost anything an ideologically motivated state doesn't like.

[Attempted Socialism]

Also, in your final catch-all category, morally reprehensible according to who? What do explicit and blatant mean? Is it not problematic to be morally reprehensible in an implicit and subtle way?

I understand the appeal of a miscellaneous category, but this one seems likely to be used to cover almost anything an ideologically motivated state doesn't like.

"I asked our FoE expert to draft a mockup of a national bill banning religious speech based on the last exemption, to motivate the Ambassador of United Massachusetts to rework the draft here. I was told just before returning to the Chamber that the jurist found my practical joke to be explicitly and blatantly cruel and reprehensible. I have here on my desk three copies of the mockup for anyone who cares, with a fourth reserved for the delegation of United Massachusetts."

[A Bright Future]

I would say that I am as before opposed to this approach on the whole. We have a decent FoE. A repeal was proposed on the basis of one issue: misrepresentation. I disagreed that that could not be dealt with via a new resolution. This proposal is clearly aimed at providing a replacement for if the FoE is repealed. I disagree with this approach also as it tries to cover too much in one resolution. Can we not put in restrictions and protections in a series of targeted resolutions complementing FoE such as we did with FoR, as opposed to a wholesale repeal and replace?

[Liberimery]

I would say that I am as before opposed to this approach on the whole. We have a decent FoE. A repeal was proposed on the basis of one issue: misrepresentation. I disagreed that that could not be dealt with via a new resolution. This proposal is clearly aimed at providing a replacement for if the FoE is repealed. I disagree with this approach also as it tries to cover too much in one resolution. Can we not put in restrictions and protections in a series of targeted resolutions complementing FoE such as we did with FoR, as opposed to a wholesale repeal and replace?

I concur and was afraid such a fix would be proposed on the heels of full repeal of freedom of expression. If free expression is to be protected, then the government may take no moral stance on any expression and must view it as either an exercise of protected speech OR an exercise of non-protected free speech. The moral nature of the speech may not influence this decision.

We hold extreme reservations with many of the provisions of this bill, including section 2e, section 2h, section 2i, section 2k, section 2l, section 2m, and section 4 in totality..

Any one of these sections could be used by a government body to restrict the freedom of expression of their citizens

In section 2e, suppose the ruling majority of a protected class of people use this exception to silence the voice of a minority protected class that are accusing them of biased actions. Or suppose advocacy of policy is not disparaging of any protected class but contains elements that are discussing issues of protected class status that are disagreed upon?

Section 2h is improperly defined and many a great work of art would be prohibited along with the less reputable. Shall we ban Michelangelo’s David along with Babes on Break part 16?

Section 2i again is too broad. Shall we ban ads for soft drinks as to much sugar does have health side effects? There is a condition known as water poisoning so shall we permit ads for bottled water brands? What about the possible threat of a Rollercoaster in an amusement park advertisement?

Section 2k, 2l, 2m all seem to open up wide holes in the resolution that any nation could use to invalidate the protections this article attempts to enact? If these three clauses persist, then it is better to never pass the resolution than to pass in same motion it's implementation and destruction.

[Kenmoria]

a. defamation, as defined in section 1a,
b. plagiarism or academic dishonesty,
c. fraud: academic, corporate, or otherwise,
d. an attempt to incite civil disorder, chaos, or the violent overthrow of the state,
e. deliberate, malicious hate speech targeted at a group of individuals on the basis of attributes such as: race, sex, disability, religion, or nationality,
f. the unauthorised leaking of classified governmental materials,
g. the unauthorised leaking of patient medical records or other highly sensitive information of a similar nature,
h. pornographic material, when not artistic or critical in nature,
g. advertisements for tobacco, drugs, and/or other very harmful substances,
i. misleading advertisement,
j. other material whose existence poses a grave threat of causing physical harm to (an) individual(s),
k. material which poses a threat to health, safety, or the lawful conduct of society
l. other explicit, blatant, and morally reprehensible forms of expression, [strucken out to avoid loopholing]

"I've added some changes, additions and removals in blue pen, based upon this delegation's feelings."

[United Massachusetts]

"Aaaah....so much. Will edit. Will respond. Maybe."

[United Massachusetts]

"I have updated this resolution to deal with the criticism. In my present opinion, this resolution is the best alternative to FoE available. Name still forthcoming."

[Liberimery]

You forgot perjury (lying under oath or during official proceedings).

[United Massachusetts]

You forgot perjury (lying under oath or during official proceedings).

"What? It's in there."

OOC: Thank you. Fixed.

[United Massachusetts]

Thoughts?

[Imperium Anglorum]

2(g) remove highly

[United Massachusetts]

"Done."

[Uan aa Boa]

I think I'll use clause 7 to restrict anything the government doesn't like the look of to people aged at least 300.

[A Bright Future]

I like this a lot more now.

"Prohibits member states from charging, detaining, or punishing journalists that publish information leaked to them," What is the relationship between this clause and the restrictions? I would allow that state sanctions to enforce restrictions include journalists. Plenty of times journos get info they cannot publish. Its a great way to enforce legitimate restrictions on expression.

I'm not so big on explicit references to natural law. I would leave them out. Including: "inherent within the natural world itself, and entitled unto all sapient creatures from birth," and "what the natural law of the universe has already proven true".

I have not heard about the "freedom from fraud" before. I would leave that out.

Have you considered including psychological harm in "other material whose existence poses a grave threat of causing physical harm to (an) individual(s),". I expect this would be tricky.

"the unauthorised leaking of classified governmental materials, patient medical records, or other sensitive information of a similar nature," Are patient records already protected by privacy laws? I think the two examples are very different and that means that other sensitive information of a similar nature is a little too loose. Also, maybe in this part, a restriction on information relevant to ongoing legal proceedings?

For hate speech, maybe include beliefs more broadly (not just religious), sexual orientation, and species?

So is this now in competition with the other proposal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

You’ll also have to et your age of majority that high, Boa, so you’ll suffer a great number of other problems.

[Uan aa Boa]

You’ll also have to et your age of majority that high, Boa, so you’ll suffer a great number of other problems.

I think the insertion of the word "reasonable" should do the trick.