NationStates

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.

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.

What changes in particular do you suggest?

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?

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.

If not for all the things Section 2 is trying to prevent, I would have voted For.
What are you lads trying to sneak past?

Soo many liberal shit. Haven't you already legalized bunch of free expressions. Good thing that this one won't pass, because of some many rejects.

"You had us up until section 2. Nerodanus votes against."

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.

I'm not sure I like that. There will be radical groups being prevented who have leaders talking how they feel.

“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.”

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.”

So your state cannot act in its own courts?

"We are disappointed to see this failing at vote particularly on what seems to be misinterpretation of the proposal. I urge the Uan aa Boan to redraft and not to abandon the idea."

- Ted

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.
So yes, corporations, associations, foundations, and the like, can state for instance they like Eki-cola over Ecoli-cola.
And just like any single person is not allowed to discriminate on gender, race, colour, sexual preference, etc., any corporation, association or foundation is also not allowed to do that.

However, it is totally unclear if this is achieved by a vote for or against this resolution. I would imagine a vote 'for' would result in to this. But then I am baffled to find most voters until now have voted against. Are all these voters racists and sexist then? Or am I missing something? As long as it is not clear what a vote implies, I will probably not vote at all.

Hoping for a better and clearer resolution soon.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for explaining.

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"?

I believe the majority consider the clauses that allow nations to regulate incitement to hatred, Holocaust denial, and perhaps also corporate lobbying, to be illiberal and open to abuse.

VW53Aland wrote:

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.

Thank you for explaining.

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"?

The resolution for individuals has stronger protections that are lost in this resolution. Hate speech and genocide denial are not specifically listed in the individual free speech resolution. In addition, this resolution ignores a hardline on what statements qualify and under what contex.

Then, wouldn't it be easier to just rephrase "individuals" in the aforementioned existing resolution to "legal entities (be it individuals or organisations)"?

Furthermore, free speech is free speech. For instance, saying that one thinks the holocaust never took place should be just as legal as saying that one thinks the earth is flat. One should have the right to be wrong. It should not be illegal for one to be dumb. And it shouldn't matter if 'one' is an individual or an organisation or any collective of individuals.

I would support any right (like freedom of speech) for 'one', as long as it does not infringe any other person's rights. Saying one believes the holocaust (or any other proven genocide) did not take place, only harms the person self, because it only shows their own ignorance or stupidity. But denying someone a job, for instance, because the person is gay, believes in another god, is female, or has a name that is more common in another part of the world, affects this other person's live. One person's right (or legal entity's right) does not supersede any other person's right.

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)"?

There's a bit of a back story here. Bear in mind that resolutions can't be amended, they can only be repealed and replaced. There was a long-standing free expression resolution that talked about people. That term was judged to refer to organisations as well as to individuals (although the chances are its author didn't intend that), which meant that in giving organisations the same level of free speech rights as individuals it made it illegal to regulate advertising or take action on corporate dishonesty. Mainly for that reason it was repealed.

The replacement avoided the problem by expressly excluding organisations. That meant organisations went from having too many rights to having none. This proposal was intended to find a middle ground. Now that it's failed, who knows? Maybe something like this would pass if it protected incitement to hatred and holocaust denial, but I'm not sure I want to submit that.

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.”

The first sentence of corporations in Wikipedia is legal person. Without recognition of corporation as legal person how will they sue?

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

This resolution is nothing but a left-wing propaganda. Luizebaland will be voting against.

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

"You guys are so cute."

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.

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.

"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."

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."

"This draft has been a constant ordeal of objections that apply just as well to individual freedom of speech. Even looking at looking at what was submitted there's no justification for 2.b or 2.c to be specific to organisations, yet here we are, and the distinction is a tacit approval of the behaviour by individuals."