Advertisement
by Foundersland » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:52 am
by Liberimery » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:23 am
Foundersland wrote:Greetings fellow leaders,
I sugest that if we make some small changes in the this legislation. Than it will pass.
Keep up the good work!
Yours sincerly,
Foundersland.
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:51 am
Liberimery wrote:Uan aa Boa wrote:Incitement of hatred on the grounds of race, religion etc is a pretty clear criterion, and not one that extends to criticism of the actions of the state.
What about in states where a racial minority criticizing a government that is clearly a racial majority only? Or citizens in favor of a secular state in a current theocracy?
by Kekanistanpines » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:16 am
by Dawn Kingdom » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:00 am
by Nerodanus » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:23 am
by Cosmopolitan borovan » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:00 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:Liberimery wrote:What about in states where a racial minority criticizing a government that is clearly a racial majority only? Or citizens in favor of a secular state in a current theocracy?
To use your first example - "the government is only made up of ethnic group X, and like all Xs they are a subhuman stain on the nation who should be driven back into the swamps they crawled out of" incites hatred on the grounds of race and could be actionable under this proposal.
"The government is unjustly biased towards ethnic group X and discriminating against ethnic group Y. We protest and will not remove ourselves from this public square until our demands our met" does not incite hatred and cannot be banned under this proposal.
by Leutria » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:08 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:28 pm
Leutria wrote:“Leutria will be voting against. You lost us right at the first definition. We cannot support any legislation that recognizes corporations, or for that matter other organizations as ‘legal persons’. We may be willing to look at future proposals in this area, but with that definition this is a nonstarter for us.”
by Bananaistan » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:37 pm
by VW53Aland » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:57 pm
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:02 pm
VW53Aland wrote:I don't understand what this resolution is all about.
As far as I know, organisations are bound by approximately the same freedom of expression as any single person.
by VW53Aland » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:41 pm
Thank you for explaining.Uan aa Boa wrote:Except that they are not, because the recently passed resolution Protecting Freedom of Expression expressly concerns itself only with the expression of individuals. This doesn't extend by default unless a law exists to extend it. This was an attempt at passing such a law.
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:13 pm
by Liberimery » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:18 pm
VW53Aland wrote:Thank you for explaining.Uan aa Boa wrote:Except that they are not, because the recently passed resolution Protecting Freedom of Expression expressly concerns itself only with the expression of individuals. This doesn't extend by default unless a law exists to extend it. This was an attempt at passing such a law.
If this is the case, then I don't understand why most people are against it. Why would anyone allow a person to speak it's mind, while at the same time disallowing an organisation to speak its "mind"?
by VW53Aland » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:34 pm
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:43 pm
VW53Aland wrote:Then, wouldn't it be easier to just rephrase "individuals" in the aforementioned existing resolution to "legal entities (be it individuals or organisations)"?
by Cosmopolitan borovan » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:30 pm
Leutria wrote:“Leutria will be voting against. You lost us right at the first definition. We cannot support any legislation that recognizes corporations, or for that matter other organizations as ‘legal persons’. We may be willing to look at future proposals in this area, but with that definition this is a nonstarter for us.”
by Dawn Kingdom » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:23 am
Jocospor wrote:We are ever so pleased to inform our World Assembly compatriots that we have voted against this pathetic excuse of a resolution. Corporations, in our opinion, can only do the best for society. Limiting their power is just another way for fake democracies to role play dictatorships. But don't worry, we understand why you'd be jealous.
Hail the Confederation!
Delegate's Office
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators
by Luizebaland » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:23 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:28 am
Dawn Kingdom wrote:Jocospor wrote:We are ever so pleased to inform our World Assembly compatriots that we have voted against this pathetic excuse of a resolution. Corporations, in our opinion, can only do the best for society. Limiting their power is just another way for fake democracies to role play dictatorships. But don't worry, we understand why you'd be jealous.
Hail the Confederation!
Delegate's Office
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators
Totally agree with you. I was really pleased this TRAIN WRECK idea was debunked from the beginning. Even more happy that new proposals aren’t getting much support.
Hail the Confederation
Head of the Department of Education
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators
by Dawn Kingdom » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:44 am
Foundersland wrote:Greetings fellow leaders,
I sugest that if we make some small changes in the this legislation. Than it will pass.
Keep up the good work!
Yours sincerly,
Foundersland.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:01 am
Dawn Kingdom wrote:Foundersland wrote:Greetings fellow leaders,
I sugest that if we make some small changes in the this legislation. Than it will pass.
Keep up the good work!
Yours sincerly,
Foundersland.
It still won’t pass. Don’t you have protection of free expression. Why are you even bothering to make these billion kinds of freedoms. Shouldn’t it be illegal?!
Legal or not, it won’t pass any time soon.
by Aclion » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:12 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Dawn Kingdom wrote:
It still won’t pass. Don’t you have protection of free expression. Why are you even bothering to make these billion kinds of freedoms. Shouldn’t it be illegal?!
Legal or not, it won’t pass any time soon.
"So you believe that when one person speaks freely, its fine, but when two or more do so as an associated group, it isn't? You have strange standards."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement