[PASSED] Protecting Free Expression

[United States of Americanas]

Retracted

[Wallenburg]

PER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICANAS ALL SPEECH IS FREE. THIS LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND AS SUCH SHALL BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORDS.

Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

No, you won't.

[Tinhampton]

this draconian controlling law that allows countries to step on its citizens rights.

GA#436 only "Permits" its members to regulate free expression, rather than mandate it. From my understanding, it is totally legal to not impose any regulations on free expression in one's country - beyond that required by other GA resolutions - whilst still complying with GA#436.

[United States of Americanas]

this draconian controlling law that allows countries to step on its citizens rights.

GA#436 only "Permits" its members to regulate free expression, rather than mandate it. From my understanding, it is totally legal to not impose any regulations on free expression in one's country - beyond that required by other GA resolutions - whilst still complying with GA#436.

Thanks for your polite reply. Wallenburg on the other hand shall remain blocked.

If you’re gonna go acting like a suit from a new world order forcing everyone to act your way then you can get lost!

If the WA it’s self has a problem with how my government is run then the WA administrators themselves can either contact me or eject my nation from the WA. But I shall not have some no name diplomat from another nation who isn’t a WA staffer ordering how I shall run my country!

So far the only proposal I have rejected compliance with is 436 and technically it’s optional to begin with. So my refusal is simply be confirming that I am leaving those rights to my constitution and states to decide. It doe world order!

[Frisbeeteria]

Wallenburg on the other hand shall remain blocked.

If you’re gonna go acting like a suit from a new world order forcing everyone to act your way then you can fuck off in my book!

Blocking is the appropriate action. Telling someone to fuck off is *** flaming ***, and you are warned accordingly.

[United States of Americanas]

Wallenburg on the other hand shall remain blocked.

If you’re gonna go acting like a suit from a new world order forcing everyone to act your way then you can fuck off in my book!

Blocking is the appropriate action. Telling someone to fuck off is *** flaming ***, and you are warned accordingly.

Edited the post before I even saw this.

Frankly. The only reason I got involved with WA was so that the North Pacific and the whole click to endorse thing would work for them. I’m not here to participate in some artificial new world order.

[Frisbeeteria]

If the WA it’s self has a problem with how my government is run then the WA administrators themselves can either contact me or eject my nation from the WA. But I shall not have some no name diplomat from another nation who isn’t a WA staffer ordering how I shall run my country!

The "no name diplomat" was simply informing you of how the game works. See the WA FAQ and GAR #2 for the reasons:

What's the World Assembly?

The World Assembly is the world's governing body. It's your chance to mold the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

WA membership is not mandatory, but once you join, compliance is assumed to be mandatory. Nobody is going to eject you for failure to comply, but you can expect quite a bit of negative feedback when you announce your non-compliance. Or you can resign. Either way, you need to get off your high horse about it.

[Aclion]

PER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICANAS ALL SPEECH IS FREE. THIS LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND AS SUCH SHALL BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORDS.

Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

No, you won't.

Also no it doesn't, nothing in this resolution contravenes the first amendment. In fact it upholds it as an international standard.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If the WA it’s self has a problem with how my government is run then the WA administrators themselves can either contact me or eject my nation from the WA. But I shall not have some no name diplomat from another nation who isn’t a WA staffer ordering how I shall run my country!

The "no name diplomat" was simply informing you of how the game works. See the WA FAQ and GAR #2 for the reasons:

What's the World Assembly?

The World Assembly is the world's governing body. It's your chance to mold the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

WA membership is not mandatory, but once you join, compliance is assumed to be mandatory. Nobody is going to eject you for failure to comply, but you can expect quite a bit of negative feedback when you announce your non-compliance. Or you can resign. Either way, you need to get off your high horse about it.

Find it pretty likely that both he, and the nameless diplomat, were speaking in character.

[Separatist Peoples]

Thanks for your polite reply. Wallenburg on the other hand shall remain blocked.

OOC: I promise you, Wallenburg won't feel like he's missing out. Nor would any of the rest of the regulars here. We don't care for noncompliant roleplay of this kind. It isn't interesting or original, its just obstructionist. If you don't like a law, find a loophole you can exploit in good faith, repeal it, or resign from the WA. Noncompliance is only tolerated when done with skill and creativity, and even then only barely.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Thanks for your polite reply. Wallenburg on the other hand shall remain blocked.

OOC: I promise you, Wallenburg won't feel like he's missing out. Nor would any of the rest of the regulars here. We don't care for noncompliant roleplay of this kind. It isn't interesting or original, its just obstructionist. If you don't like a law, find a loophole you can exploit in good faith, repeal it, or resign from the WA. Noncompliance is only tolerated when done with skill and creativity, and even then only barely.

I only do it because I rp the GVH as a failing state whose provinces are now pretty much self-governing.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

Would hate speech come under the defamation exception?

[Premiora]

Would hate speech come under the defamation exception?

I believe so if the hate speech has no direct impact on the publicity / reputation of the target. If not then I believe not.

[Liberimery]

Would hate speech come under the defamation exception?

I believe so if the hate speech has no direct impact on the publicity / reputation of the target. If not then I believe not.

Interesting little legal read. I'd like to see a likely scenario.

I would say that this doesn't cover hate crimes (i.e. If you can prove that protected status was a motivator of criminal actions, you can charge a hate crime charge on top of regular criminal charges. But just calling someone a slur does not count). It also does not nullify discrimination in hiring or admissions or work place practices.

[Azadistan-land of the free]

I believe so if the hate speech has no direct impact on the publicity / reputation of the target. If not then I believe not.

Interesting little legal read. I'd like to see a likely scenario.

I would say that this doesn't cover hate crimes (i.e. If you can prove that protected status was a motivator of criminal actions, you can charge a hate crime charge on top of regular criminal charges. But just calling someone a slur does not count). It also does not nullify discrimination in hiring or admissions or work place practices.

The article did say defamation and interfering with a fair trial are not protected free speech and thats what hate crime is.

[Separatist Peoples]

Interesting little legal read. I'd like to see a likely scenario.

I would say that this doesn't cover hate crimes (i.e. If you can prove that protected status was a motivator of criminal actions, you can charge a hate crime charge on top of regular criminal charges. But just calling someone a slur does not count). It also does not nullify discrimination in hiring or admissions or work place practices.

The article did say defamation and interfering with a fair trial are not protected free speech and thats what hate crime is.

"Hate speech does not necessarily interfere with fair trials."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The article did say defamation and interfering with a fair trial are not protected free speech and thats what hate crime is.

"Hate speech does not necessarily interfere with fair trials."

Hate speech is a fiction made up by people with agendas to push.