[PASSED] Protecting Free Expression

[Pan-Asiatic States]

Zhan furiously takes down notes with his red-and-black pen. He then raises it to signal asking a question.

"Strongly supporting this, but could you please further define what terms exactly make violation of Free Speech as is, orchestrated by both civlian and government personnel? What if a government operative/s suppresses a rally through a counter-rally, then denies government assosiation?"

[Kenmoria]

"For clause 1b, political groups are organisations, and it is dictatorial to allow member states to ban criticism of them."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"For clause 1b, political groups are organisations, and it is dictatorial to allow member states to ban criticism of them."

"I agree this should be clarified a bit. As is, any false statement, including parody and satire, could be construed as intent to 'falsely injure' its target. That won't fly."

[Uan aa Boa]

In terms of classified information or information received in confidence, I'd like to see some protection for whistle-blowers.

[United Massachusetts]

"For clause 1b, political groups are organisations, and it is dictatorial to allow member states to ban criticism of them."

"I agree this should be clarified a bit. As is, any false statement, including parody and satire, could be construed as intent to 'falsely injure' its target. That won't fly."

I believe my new definition of defamation should clarify this; please confirm as much."

In terms of classified information or information received in confidence, I'd like to see some protection for whistle-blowers.

"Such as?"

[Uan aa Boa]

In terms of classified information or information received in confidence, I'd like to see some protection for whistle-blowers.

"Such as?"

How about "...except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure is clearly in the public interest"?

[Christian Democrats]

The natural law reference is awkward, and I can't think of any natural law philosophers who endorse freedom of speech per se. I would prefer a resolution that categorically prohibits international restrictions on speech and that simultaneously prohibits the worst kinds of national restrictions.

[Kenmoria]

"For clause g, I suggest adding public property to the list, seeing as some of the most important buildings in society: schools, hospitals and fire stations, are publicly-owned."

[Uan aa Boa]

I would like to see member states have the right to restrict hate speech without the requirement that an expression of hate speech be, in and of itself, a threat to civil order or an incitement to violence. I think it's pretty clear that widespread hate speech increases the risk of violence and other negative outcomes even where that can't be attributed to any individual piece of expression.

[United Massachusetts]

I would like to see member states have the right to restrict hate speech without the requirement that an expression of hate speech be, in and of itself, a threat to civil order or an incitement to violence. I think it's pretty clear that widespread hate speech increases the risk of violence and other negative outcomes even where that can't be attributed to any individual piece of expression.

We believe that this is a matter for future legislation to deal with. Our bill permits future hate speech legislation to occur.

"For clause g, I suggest adding public property to the list, seeing as some of the most important buildings in society: schools, hospitals and fire stations, are publicly-owned."

Will do.

The natural law reference is awkward, and I can't think of any natural law philosophers who endorse freedom of speech per se. I would prefer a resolution that categorically prohibits international restrictions on speech and that simultaneously prohibits the worst kinds of national restrictions.

I'll amend the preamble.

[Uan aa Boa]

I would like to see member states have the right to restrict hate speech without the requirement that an expression of hate speech be, in and of itself, a threat to civil order or an incitement to violence. I think it's pretty clear that widespread hate speech increases the risk of violence and other negative outcomes even where that can't be attributed to any individual piece of expression.

We believe that this is a matter for future legislation to deal with. Our bill permits future hate speech legislation to occur.

I'm not so sure that it does. Your bill would prevent the government from placing any hindrance on free expression outside the scope of specified exemptions. If a later proposal tries to allow greater restriction of hate speech will it not be ruled illegal for contradicting your bill?

[Kenmoria]

"2c, protecting civil order sounds rather vague and looks as though it could be easily used to suppress dissent against characteristics of society."

[Uan aa Boa]

"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, and excluding satire

I'd like to ask about defamation. Suppose that a newspaper carries an opinion piece which sets out some facts about the President's speeches, policies and conduct that are not in dispute and then goes on to assert in strong terms that because of these facts the President is incompetent, immoral, opportunistic, undignified and a stain on the integrity of the nation. The tone of the article is clearly malicious and it clearly intends to injure the reputation of the President. Does your proposal allow the President to take action against the author?

[United Massachusetts]

We believe that this is a matter for future legislation to deal with. Our bill permits future hate speech legislation to occur.

I'm not so sure that it does. Your bill would prevent the government from placing any hindrance on free expression outside the scope of specified exemptions. If a later proposal tries to allow greater restriction of hate speech will it not be ruled illegal for contradicting your bill?

Read and weep

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,

"2c, protecting civil order sounds rather vague and looks as though it could be easily used to suppress dissent against characteristics of society."

I'll change that.

"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, and excluding satire

I'd like to ask about defamation. Suppose that a newspaper carries an opinion piece which sets out some facts about the President's speeches, policies and conduct that are not in dispute and then goes on to assert in strong terms that because of these facts the President is incompetent, immoral, opportunistic, undignified and a stain on the integrity of the nation. The tone of the article is clearly malicious and it clearly intends to injure the reputation of the President. Does your proposal allow the President to take action against the author?

Emphasis mine.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The natural law reference is awkward, and I can't think of any natural law philosophers who endorse freedom of speech per se.

I somehow, agree with CD again. However that is, this.

[New Mushroom Kingdom]

Holly has two copies of the proposal on her desk, one older and one showing the current draft's text. After a final spot-check, she stood up to ask the question "I largely agree with the current proposal, even if I preferred certain parts of the original version (e.g prohibition of advocating the overthrow of the state). While free expression does have limits, by and large it is a very important right for a populace. I give a tentative FOR vote on this proposal."

[United Massachusetts]

The natural law reference is awkward, and I can't think of any natural law philosophers who endorse freedom of speech per se.

I somehow, agree with CD again. However that is, this.

I have amended the proposal.

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan cannot support this proposal. It goes way too far in the exceptions allowed particularly the threat to civil order which could be used to justify any cause for restriction of expression by tyrannical governments. The title could just as easily be "have whatever restrictions of the freedom of expression you want"."

- Ted

[United Massachusetts]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan cannot support this proposal. It goes way too far in the exceptions allowed particularly the threat to civil order which could be used to justify any cause for restriction of expression by tyrannical governments. The title could just as easily be "have whatever restrictions of the freedom of expression you want"."

- Ted

I disagree. Any reasonable interpretation of this resolution protects peaceful free expression. The original FoE allowed member nations to restrict free expression to prevent "widespread disorder", this of course being "a threat to civil order." In my reading, it doesn't change the longstanding WA policy in this regard.

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan cannot support this proposal. It goes way too far in the exceptions allowed particularly the threat to civil order which could be used to justify any cause for restriction of expression by tyrannical governments. The title could just as easily be "have whatever restrictions of the freedom of expression you want"."

- Ted

I disagree. Any reasonable interpretation of this resolution protects peaceful free expression.

"I could imagine a dictatorship deciding that any criticism of "dear leader" is a threat to civil order. Or perhaps a theocracy stating that opinions advancing the cause of women being allowed to drive as a threat to civil order. It's not that hard to think of examples or exceptions which this proposal would allow.

"Widespread disorder =/= a threat to civil order. It's well short as these examples illustrate."

- Ted

[Kenmoria]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan cannot support this proposal. It goes way too far in the exceptions allowed particularly the threat to civil order which could be used to justify any cause for restriction of expression by tyrannical governments. The title could just as easily be "have whatever restrictions of the freedom of expression you want"."

- Ted

I disagree. Any reasonable interpretation of this resolution protects peaceful free expression.

(OOC: “Civil order - the form of government of a social organisation”, from the dictionary. If one accepts that protecting something could require banning protests on it, which isn’t that unreasonable, then clause 2c could allow prohibiting criticism of a whole range of organisations, including the government.)

[United Massachusetts]

I disagree. Any reasonable interpretation of this resolution protects peaceful free expression.

(OOC: “Civil order - the form of government of a social organisation”, from the dictionary. If one accepts that protecting something could require banning protests on it, which isn’t that unreasonable, then clause 2c could allow prohibiting criticism of a whole range of organisations, including the government.)

(OOC: Do I have to unsubmit?)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

(OOC: “Civil order - the form of government of a social organisation”, from the dictionary. If one accepts that protecting something could require banning protests on it, which isn’t that unreasonable, then clause 2c could allow prohibiting criticism of a whole range of organisations, including the government.)

(OOC: Do I have to unsubmit?)

OOC:. Based on 2(g) alone, I sure would. Under this extremely vague definition, calling for the repeal of DMCA could be construed as "a threat to intellectual property" by nations we might otherwise consider reasonable. Use some word like "breach" or "destruction" or "infringement" instead.

[United Massachusetts]

Very well. This has been unsubmitted. Worst waste of stamps ever.

[United Massachusetts]

I have made the appropriate changes and these are reflected in the OP.