[PASSED] Protecting Free Expression

[United Massachusetts]

Oppose due to clause 2b. Restriction of pornographic material, at least in such a wide-sweeping manner as the resolution implies, is unacceptable.

Clause 2b doesn't restrict pornographic material. It merely permits member nations to do so, particularly given the intense opposition to it from the feminist movement and the religious right alike.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Oppose due to clause 2b. Restriction of pornographic material, at least in such a wide-sweeping manner as the resolution implies, is unacceptable.

Clause 2b doesn't restrict pornographic material. It merely permits member nations to do so, particularly given the intense opposition to it from the feminist movement and the religious right alike.

The Havenic delegation must ask why these groups anti-freedom belief should be respected. The Haven holds that freedom of expression covers pornographic material: preventing the worlds more backwards nations from using their religions and sensibilities to harm the cause of free speech seems just the form of worthy cause the general assembly should be supportive of.

[Epluribus Unum]

So it figures it would be a Massachusetts Liberal to make such a bill!


Free Expression as long as it suits "YOUR EXPRESSIONS" is NOT fee expression! Whats next a bill to prevent individual thoughts? Maybe a bill that people can only think like Mr Massachusetts!


Ridiculous!

[United Massachusetts]

So it figures it would be a Massachusetts Liberal to make such a bill!


Free Expression as long as it suits "YOUR EXPRESSIONS" is NOT fee expression! Whats next a bill to prevent individual thoughts? Maybe a bill that people can only think like Mr Massachusetts!


Ridiculous!

? When did I restrict opinions to only my own?

Clause 2b doesn't restrict pornographic material. It merely permits member nations to do so, particularly given the intense opposition to it from the feminist movement and the religious right alike.

The Havenic delegation must ask why these groups anti-freedom belief should be respected. The Haven holds that freedom of expression covers pornographic material: preventing the worlds more backwards nations from using their religions and sensibilities to harm the cause of free speech seems just the form of worthy cause the general assembly should be supportive of.

Because said restrictions were already in GA 30, and for good reason pertaining to national sovereignty. The matter has already been spoken on by the voters, who believe that enabling some restriction on porn (particularly where it objectifies women) isn't bad at all. I seek to respect that, and only correct the flaws in GA 30, as listed in the repeal.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So it figures it would be a Massachusetts Liberal to make such a bill!


Free Expression as long as it suits "YOUR EXPRESSIONS" is NOT fee expression! Whats next a bill to prevent individual thoughts? Maybe a bill that people can only think like Mr Massachusetts!


Ridiculous!

? When did I restrict opinions to only my own?

The Havenic delegation must ask why these groups anti-freedom belief should be respected. The Haven holds that freedom of expression covers pornographic material: preventing the worlds more backwards nations from using their religions and sensibilities to harm the cause of free speech seems just the form of worthy cause the general assembly should be supportive of.

Because said restrictions were already in GA 30, and for good reason pertaining to national sovereignty. The matter has already been spoken on by the voters, who believe that enabling some restriction on porn (particularly where it objectifies women) isn't bad at all. I seek to respect that, and only correct the flaws in GA 30, as listed in the repeal.

The objectification of women is a myth created by the radical feminist political machine. Pornography is expression, and the right of citizens to express themselves freely must be held sacred. Though the Havenic government does not believe in making laws based on certain peoples tender sensibilities, it does believe that they should have a right to express such misguided views: hense why we are a proudly free nation.

((OOC: I feel at this point I should make the 'my ns nation does not reflect my rl views' disclaimer.))

[Pinyom]

This interferes with dictatorships and messes with sovereignty the bill is too politically correct and nations should be free to decide how they run all dictators band up and vote against the bill and if it passes let’s make a repeal

[Aclion]

This interferes with dictatorships and messes with sovereignty the bill is too politically correct and nations should be free to decide how they run all dictators band up and vote against the bill and if it passes let’s make a repeal

If you do, remember you will need arguments other then national sovereignty, as messing with sovereignty is our job.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Enacting sweeping restrictions on secondary educational speech would not typically be considered reasonable. I think ensuring that restrictions are age-based is implied in the text of the resolution, given the "least restrictive means" clause.

That's BS and you know it. Giving nations what is essentially a recommendation to be less restrictive hardly connotes the age of the students in question. You failed to distinguish common schoolmarms (or even TAs) from tenured university professors, who should be expected to set their own curricula, select their own course materials, and determine the content of of their in-class lectures without interference from anyone. In this respect, the government can step in and interfere with their academic freedom. You botched this.

We did not regulate the rights of educational institutions; we provided public educational institutions the ability to restrict certain speech

Point in fact, the resolution does not specify public institutions, which presents the additional problem of governments seeking to interfere with private institutions just as much as the schools they themselves fund. Which, beyond the government's authority to accredit private institutions, is plainly ridiculous.

I don't think the two terms provided are all that able to be stretched within regular compliance.

If you had been more precise with your wording, I might be able to take your say-so on that. However, the language you chose is vague enough for governments to read whatever they want into it.

All of this, of course, is beside the problem pointed out by SL, that under this resolution future General Assemblies are free to erode this basic expression right any way they see fit.

We are sorry, we remain unconvinced and will not reverse our vote.

It is an opinion of the Ministry. Multiple staff members were involved in choosing to support the resolution.

Uh-huh.

[Araraukar]

"Seeing as how the final clause of Mandate #3 essentially nullifies all protections offered by Mandate #2 ... The World Assembly could, without contradicting this resolution, suppress free expression of any number of types for any number of reasons, including those allegedly protected by their lack of enumeration in Mandate #2. Since Mandate #2 and the first part of Mandate #3 together define the entire universe of acceptable restrictions on expression, but the rest of Mandate #3 allows for future amendments and additions to that universe, therefore the restriction of acceptable regulations is meaningless. The World Assembly, even with this resolution in place, will retain the right and ability to restrict expression in any way soever it pleases."

"You have very precisely explained exactly why the Araraukarian official vote stands for, madam Zakalwe. Replacing a law that didn't do what it appeared to do with a law that doesn't do what it appears to do, doesn't help protect freedom of expression at all, but of course that works just fine for oppressive, totalitarian regimes seeking to keep their citizens restrained as far as is possible."

[Cekoviu]

Oppose due to clause 2b. Restriction of pornographic material, at least in such a wide-sweeping manner as the resolution implies, is unacceptable.

Clause 2b doesn't restrict pornographic material. It merely permits member nations to do so, particularly given the intense opposition to it from the feminist movement and the religious right alike.

I know. Giving nations an explicit, WA-backed up way to ban pornography is a ridiculous idea. The support of this by radical feminists and the religious right is certainly not a good thing.

This interferes with dictatorships and messes with sovereignty the bill is too politically correct and nations should be free to decide how they run all dictators band up and vote against the bill and if it passes let’s make a repeal

OOC: Oh no, the WA is interfering with dictatorships. How terribly awful. ;~;

[The Great Imperator Jeffrey]

Proposals like this are why I don't waste my time with the WA. Such words as democracy and freedom are treated like curse words in my country. I think that such a proposal as this is horrible and only serves to spread the horrible disease known as democracy.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Oh no, the WA is interfering with dictatorships.

OOC: Actually it doesn't, at least not with this proposal, due to how it's worded.

Proposals like this are why I don't waste my time with the WA. Such words as democracy and freedom are treated like curse words in my country. I think that such a proposal as this is horrible and only serves to spread the horrible disease known as democracy.

IC: "Nothing in the proposal requires you to let the democracy plague spread to your nation. Your nation has a vote, the citizens of your nation aren't required to have any say in it, just whoever is in charge of your nation."

[Devonia]

This is completely unfounded. No nation should be forced to bend their rules and way of life for the whim of the world. Some people need to be repressed for national safety!

[Communist Taxachusetts]

So it figures it would be a Massachusetts Liberal to make such a bill!

Free Expression as long as it suits "YOUR EXPRESSIONS" is NOT fee expression! Whats next a bill to prevent individual thoughts? Maybe a bill that people can only think like Mr Massachusetts!

Hey, hey, hey! Just because it says "United" on the label don't make it so. If anyone is "Mr. Massachusetts," it ain't him! Keep lookin'.

[United Massachusetts]

So it figures it would be a Massachusetts Liberal to make such a bill!

Free Expression as long as it suits "YOUR EXPRESSIONS" is NOT fee expression! Whats next a bill to prevent individual thoughts? Maybe a bill that people can only think like Mr Massachusetts!

Hey, hey, hey! Just because it says "United" on the label don't make it so. If anyone is "Mr. Massachusetts," it ain't him! Keep lookin'.

We are United. Communism has no place within the Roman Catholic Commonwealth.

[Communist Taxachusetts]

Hey, no need to get so defensive!

[United Massachusetts]

Hey, no need to get so defensive!

Says the non-existent "nation" within the Roman Catholic Commonwealth, a nation whose existence is only in the dreams of our Socialist Party leader.

[Janlaand]

This bill would allow the restriction of freedom of speech for minors, which is not necessarily a problem, but there is no definition on what speech can and cannot be restricted. This bill would also allow countries to restrict anything that is deemed pornographic. Therefore, seeing as the bill will be passed either way, I voted no in protest of these two problems.

[Janlaand]

This is completely unfounded. No nation should be forced to bend their rules and way of life for the whim of the world. Some people need to be repressed for national safety!

Then leave the world assembly. Also, this bill allows punishment of people who leak classified information.

[United States of Americanas]

Pornography is a form of speech albeit adult only in nature. It is a type of performing art when done ethically. To allow nations to impede the adult entertainment community is to infringe upon the rights of people who use and make pornography.

Amateurs in their bedrooms sometimes like to make a video and post it online. This law contains far too many loopholes that countries can abuse.

My vote is a NO

[United States of Americanas]

This bill would allow the restriction of freedom of speech for minors, which is not necessarily a problem, but there is no definition on what speech can and cannot be restricted. This bill would also allow countries to restrict anything that is deemed pornographic. Therefore, seeing as the bill will be passed either way, I voted no in protest of these two problems.

Grief. I don’t even think I got that far. When I saw how it controls adults producing porn I already condemned this law.

[United States of Americanas]

This is completely unfounded. No nation should be forced to bend their rules and way of life for the whim of the world. Some people need to be repressed for national safety!

Then leave the world assembly. Also, this bill allows punishment of people who leak classified information.

Personally. Many of the laws passed by WA are complete hogwash. The laws my country passes on its own are quite sufficient.

I’ll give my WA membership a chance but if I see a few more hogwash pieces like this I’ll be leaving.

[United States of Americanas]

Oppose due to clause 2b. Restriction of pornographic material, at least in such a wide-sweeping manner as the resolution implies, is unacceptable.

Clause 2b doesn't restrict pornographic material. It merely permits member nations to do so, particularly given the intense opposition to it from the feminist movement and the religious right alike.

The government doesn’t need to control porn. Foolish people need to learn how to fucking use NetNanny. ESPECIALLY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT. THEY SHALL NOT CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE. TO DO SO IS TO JUDGE OTHERS AND TAKE THE LORDS COMMANDING THRONE! IT IS A BLASPHEMY!

[Hessere]

Clause 2b doesn't restrict pornographic material. It merely permits member nations to do so, particularly given the intense opposition to it from the feminist movement and the religious right alike.

The government doesn’t need to control porn. Foolish people need to learn how to fucking use NetNanny. ESPECIALLY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT. THEY SHALL NOT CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE. TO DO SO IS TO JUDGE OTHERS AND TAKE THE LORDS COMMANDING THRONE! IT IS A BLASPHEMY!

OOC: I'd suggest maybe condensing stuff to one reply

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this resolution in concert with Our regional delegate. We aren't too sure about the pornography clause, but We submit our vote in favor of the resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya