[PASSED] Protecting Free Expression

[Christian Democrats]

Why does this proposal include an exception for "civilian health or safety" but not military health or safety?

[Uan aa Boa]

This draft has now, I think, achieved the threshold at which we could support and recommend it. I am curious as to how the attempt at building "ammendability" into clause 3 would play out in practice, but even if it cannot be relied upon I believe the new "civilian health and safety" exception will allow nations to act against the more blatant examples of hate speech if they wish to do so. While hardly an exercise in minimalism, the toning down of the preamble is also noted and appreciated. It's a compromise, but I believe an acceptable one.

[Christian Democrats]

Is there a reason why this proposal is limited to the rights of individuals? Should all persons not have the right to speak freely?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This whole corporate personhood thing is annoying. Yes, we know American politics is nonsense but let’s not also tie up the GA in knots trying to extend every right that a natural person has to “legal persons”. Like FFS, the rest of the world manages just fine with corporations having a limited subset of rights.

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: This whole corporate personhood thing is annoying. Yes, we know American politics is nonsense but let’s not also tie up the GA in knots trying to extend every right that a natural person has to “legal persons”. Like FFS, the rest of the world manages just fine with corporations having a limited subset of rights.

Should a church, political party, or other association not have the right to express its views in public? If freedom of speech is actually fundamental, it should be available to citizens whether they are acting alone or in concert.

Under your view, for example, it would be perfectly legitimate for a member state to suppress LGBT organizations. According to your logic, they're associations, and associations are not entitled to exercise human rights, such as freedom of speech.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's not just the US. The conception that corporations are juristic persons is older than the United States. In the common law, it's inherited from England, and it even appears in Irish law in the conception of the state. For example:

There is limited opportunity under statute, outlined above, for an individual to make a claim for compensation against the State for wrongs committed in the criminal justice sphere. We must therefore turn to Irish tort law to determine whether any further rights to open a civil lawsuit exist.

At the outset it should be noted that in case of Byrne v. Ireland⁶ the Supreme Court rejected the State’s contention that it was immune from tortuous liability; the State was found to be a juristic person who would be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its servants committed in the course of employment. The plaintiff, therefore, succeeded in her action for damages for injuries sustained when she fell into a trench dug on the authority of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Court further held that the Attorney General is the appropriate person to represent the State against such a claim for damages.

https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/doc ... 052010.pdf

[Kenmoria]

OOC: This whole corporate personhood thing is annoying. Yes, we know American politics is nonsense but let’s not also tie up the GA in knots trying to extend every right that a natural person has to “legal persons”. Like FFS, the rest of the world manages just fine with corporations having a limited subset of rights.

Should a church, political party, or other association not have the right to express its views in public? If freedom of speech is actually fundamental, it should be available to citizens whether they are acting alone or in concert.

Under your view, for example, it would be perfectly legitimate for a member state to suppress LGBT organizations. According to your logic, they're associations, and associations are not entitled to exercise human rights, such as freedom of speech.

(OOC: Even if one accepts that legal persons should have exactly the same rights as natural citizens with regards to freedom of expression, that does not mean this proposal has to act on that. This proposal is aimed at natural persons, there is currently a different draft by a different author on legal persons. Adding legal persons to this one could just complicate the proposal. Also, companies do not have the right to vote, which is a right granted to actual people, but clearly isn't applicable to collectives.)

[United Massachusetts]

Why does this proposal include an exception for "civilian health or safety" but not military health or safety?

Done.

Is there a reason why this proposal is limited to the rights of individuals? Should all persons not have the right to speak freely?

I'll wait for Uan-an-Boa's draft.

[Christian Democrats]

Why does this proposal include an exception for "civilian health or safety" but not military health or safety?

Done.

"Public health or safety" would be preferable to your current wording.

[Kenmoria]

"The fact that clause 1b excepts public servants from the definition of defamation seems able to be abused somewhat. For example, someone could continually publish information saying the Kenmorian minister for education had murdered children, knowing they could not be tried for defamation due to this legislation. I suggest adding an exception for public servants only when the defamation directly links to their role."

[United Massachusetts]

"Done and Done."

[Christian Democrats]

"Done and Done."

Aren't servicemen a part of the public? Saying "public and military" seems superfluous.

[United Massachusetts]

"Done and Done."

Aren't servicemen a part of the public? Saying "public and military" seems superfluous.

Done.

It is now "civilian or military health or safety."

[Aclion]

Aren't servicemen a part of the public? Saying "public and military" seems superfluous.

Done.

It is now "civilian or military health or safety."

Isn't that still superfluous? Could just say "health or safety".

[Wallenburg]

Done.

It is now "civilian or military health or safety."

Isn't that still superfluous? Could just say "health or safety".

Of whom? The explicit detail is, while perhaps not optimally implemented, useful.

[Christian Democrats]

Done.

It is now "civilian or military health or safety."

Isn't that still superfluous? Could just say "health or safety".

"Public health or safety" would be best.

[Kenmoria]

“For clause 3, I don’t see the need to explicitly mention mandates of legislation when it is already referenced in clause 2.”

[United Massachusetts]

“For clause 3, I don’t see the need to explicitly mention mandates of legislation when it is already referenced in clause 2.”

"I'm keeping it, for clarity's sake."

[United Massachusetts]

bump

[Kiravian WA Mission]

"Our delegation is satisfied with the amended draft. We recommend that the authoring delegation move forward with the submission if they are similarly satisfied, and unless there are further objections."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Our delegation is satisfied with the amended draft. We recommend that the authoring delegation move forward with the submission if they are similarly satisfied, and unless there are further objections."

We concur, insofar as we prefer this draft to the effort by the Wallenburgian delegation. We are however concerned that

or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation,

might be subject to challenge, and/or may be entirely suerfluous (OOC: I am not inclined to argue, but I think it colourable to argue that future resolutions may not permit any regulation not allowed when this one is passed due to the amendment rule, this proposal's language notwithstanding).

[Uan aa Boa]

We would appreciate some indication as to whether United Massachusetts intends to submit this in the near future. It seems reasonable to allow them scope to do that if they wish to, but if not Aclion and I are minded to bring forth an alternative that would incorporate our draft on legal persons.

This draft has come a long way from the original, but the more I look at this "subject to future resolutions" device the less confidence I have in its effectiveness or legality. Proper provision at this stage for hate speech and holocaust denial would be far preferable. We also think this draft may well allow freedom of expression to take the form of being very loud in residential areas in the middle of the night, with WA protection trumping local laws against that, the harassment of patients entering abortion clinics and political campaigning inside polling stations. Removing the pornography clause would clearly be popular and, bemoaning the prolix preamble, I am yearning to prune it further.

[United Massachusetts]

We would appreciate some indication as to whether United Massachusetts intends to submit this in the near future. It seems reasonable to allow them scope to do that if they wish to, but if not Aclion and I are minded to bring forth an alternative that would incorporate our draft on legal persons.

This draft has come a long way from the original, but the more I look at this "subject to future resolutions" device the less confidence I have in its effectiveness or legality. Proper provision at this stage for hate speech and holocaust denial would be far preferable. We also think this draft may well allow freedom of expression to take the form of being very loud in residential areas in the middle of the night, with WA protection trumping local laws against that, the harassment of patients entering abortion clinics and political campaigning inside polling stations. Removing the pornography clause would clearly be popular and, bemoaning the prolix preamble, I am yearning to prune it further.

We do wish to; we're just waiting to find time we can set aside to figuring out how our API script works. Feel free to post your draft if you want, but I think I'll find time to submit mine soon. A couple notes:

• I think I have enough faith in the WA populace that I trust the "subject to future resolutions" device. It helps avoid the problem of GA 30 to begin with
• We think hate speech is properly dealt with in a future resolution, as it is far too complex to handle in this. Furthermore, due to its controversy, we ought to let the WA voters have a say regarding the issue of hate speech separately
• I am not removing the pornography clause. Deal with it.

[Uan aa Boa]

We think hate speech is properly dealt with in a future resolution, as it is far too complex to handle in this. Furthermore, due to its controversy, we ought to let the WA voters have a say regarding the issue of hate speech separately.

These are both good points. It's just that in an ideal world I'd like more assurance than I currently have that any such attempt won't be ruled a contradiction of your resolution.

I don't suppose anyone in GenSec would care to venture an opinion?

[United Massachusetts]

We think hate speech is properly dealt with in a future resolution, as it is far too complex to handle in this. Furthermore, due to its controversy, we ought to let the WA voters have a say regarding the issue of hate speech separately.

These are both good points. It's just that in an ideal world I'd like more assurance than I currently have that any such attempt won't be ruled a contradiction of your resolution.

I don't suppose anyone in GenSec would care to venture an opinion?

If it is, I will repeal my own resolution.