NationStates

Christian Democrats wrote:I fear that the term "commercial influence" could be construed in an overbroad manner. For example, a national government could prohibit the campaign advertisements of an environmental group -- e.g., tell your legislators to vote in favor of the carbon tax bill -- on the theory that such advertisements would have an undue and negative influence on national commerce.

Surely the economic impact of a carbon tax would be governmental influence on commerce, whereas the proposal text allows action to limit commercial influence on government. There may be a clearer way to say what I have in mind, however. I'll give it some thought.

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:I fear that the term "commercial influence" could be construed in an overbroad manner. For example, a national government could prohibit the campaign advertisements of an environmental group -- e.g., tell your legislators to vote in favor of the carbon tax bill -- on the theory that such advertisements would have an undue and negative influence on national commerce.

Surely the economic impact of a carbon tax would be governmental influence on commerce, whereas the proposal text allows action to limit commercial influence on government. There may be a clearer way to say what I have in mind, however. I'll give it some thought.

How about this?

So we just set up some not-for-profit fronts...

I don't think it's possible to specify the type of organisation that can be subject to restrictions because, as IA says, corporations will create subsidiaries outside the scope of that definition. I think it should be possible, however, to identify corporate or commercial influence where finance and/or control of political activity can be traced back to the profit-making sector.

So I just set up some not-for-profit fronts which are not part of my corporate hierarchy, but with a Board of Directors who just happen to be the people in charge of my company...

Imperium Anglorum wrote:So I just set up some not-for-profit fronts which are not part of my corporate hierarchy, but with a Board of Directors who just happen to be the people in charge of my company...

There would also be the question of where your non-profit front got the money that funds its political activities. I'm mindful of NatSov in this, so I'm not writing the restrictions, just setting out the scope within which governments can write their own restrictions if they want to. If, however, a non-profit organisation started inviting politicians on all expenses paid trips to a luxury Caribbean resort where they are shown presentations on the perfidy of environmental regulations, and if it turned out that the majority of the non-profit's directors were also directors of Pollution Inc, then even without examining the finances I believe this could fall foul of rules that were "reasonable."

I think such rules would be profoundly unreasonable. You're basically predicating juridicial action to strip a company of its speech rights on some person's association with some other person. That's extremely pernicious.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think such rules would be profoundly unreasonable. You're basically predicating juridicial action to strip a company of its speech rights on some person's association with some other person. That's extremely pernicious.

What would be pernicious would be preventing governments that wanted to from addressing the problem of corporate lobbying. People can't and shouldn't be stripped of their speech rights because of who they associate with, but the speech rights of legal entities that are created to be vehicles for corporate influence are a different matter. This is human rights legislation. We accept that it has to confer certain rights on corporations because the issue of fronts and subsidiaries makes it impossible to create a workable distinction between corporations on the one hand and organisations that help people to realise their human rights on the other. It doesn't, and shouldn't, seek to place corporate speech rights on a par with individual speech rights.

That said, if this passes alongside the recent resolution on individual free expression, no nation that doesn't wish to will be required to place any restrictions whatsoever on the speech rights of corporations. That's a choice for governments to make.

Uan aa Boa wrote:I don't think it's possible to specify the type of organisation that can be subject to restrictions because, as IA says, corporations will create subsidiaries outside the scope of that definition. I think it should be possible, however, to identify corporate or commercial influence where finance and/or control of political activity can be traced back to the profit-making sector.

I think my proposed clause* would take care of your concern. Under it, member states could impose some reasonable regulations on non-profit entities (the means) "in order to prevent undue, corrupting influence on government by for-profit corporations and other business enterprises" (the end).

___________
* "Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons in order to prevent undue, corrupting influence on government by for-profit corporations and other business enterprises."

OOC: So what does this proposal do exactly? From what I can tell, it simply reaffirms previous, active World Assembly legislation and states what member nations can already do.

Christian Democrats wrote:I think my proposed clause* would take care of your concern. Under it, member states could impose some reasonable regulations on non-profit entities (the means) "in order to prevent undue, corrupting influence on government by for-profit corporations and other business enterprises" (the end).

I agree, though I would strike the word "undue," remaining idealistic enough to hope that there is no due amount of corruption.

Zone 71 wrote:OOC: So what does this proposal do exactly? From what I can tell, it simply reaffirms previous, active World Assembly legislation and states what member nations can already do.

Some time ago, a long-standing resolution on freedom of expression was repealed. The problem with it was that the term "people" was ruled to include all legal persons i.e. corporations as well as individuals. The old resolution therefore inadvertently prevented the regulation of advertising and other restrictions on corporate behaviour because, although it didn't mean to, it gave corporations the same free speech rights as individuals.

It was replaced by the recent resolution by United Massachusetts, which avoids the problems of its predecessor by explicitly stating that it only concerns the free expression of individuals. A consequence of this is that we're now in a situation where there is no protection for the free expression of organisations. That means governments are currently allowed to legally silence political parties, civil rights groups, environmental campaigns, residents associations, publishing companies etc etc.

This proposal extends to organisations most of the protections already afforded to individuals, but to avoid getting into the same difficulties as the original it seeks to allow governments to regulate advertising and require a degree of corporate honesty and to take steps to limit the influence of corporations on government. In an ideal world I'd simply protect the free speech of the good guys (the civil rights and environmental groups etc) and leave profit making companies unprotected, but as we've been discussing that would allow corporations to set up non-profit subsidiaries or shell companies and do their dirty work through these intermediaries.

The rules say that our proposal cannot contradict UM's resolution, nor rely on it in such a way that it would become nonsensical if UM's resolution were to be repealed. That's why the text has to talk fairly vaguely about "whatever resolutions are currently in force."

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Zone 71 wrote:OOC: So what does this proposal do exactly? From what I can tell, it simply reaffirms previous, active World Assembly legislation and states what member nations can already do.

Some time ago, a long-standing resolution on freedom of expression was repealed. The problem with it was that the term "people" was ruled to include all legal persons i.e. corporations as well as individuals. The old resolution therefore inadvertently prevented the regulation of advertising and other restrictions on corporate behaviour because, although it didn't mean to, it gave corporations the same free speech rights as individuals.

It was replaced by the recent resolution by United Massachusetts, which avoids the problems of its predecessor by explicitly stating that it only concerns the free expression of individuals. A consequence of this is that we're now in a situation where there is no protection for the free expression of organisations. That means governments are currently allowed to legally silence political parties, civil rights groups, environmental campaigns, residents associations, publishing companies etc etc.

This proposal extends to organisations most of the protections already afforded to individuals, but to avoid getting into the same difficulties as the original it seeks to allow governments to regulate advertising and require a degree of corporate honesty and to take steps to limit the influence of corporations on government. In an ideal world I'd simply protect the free speech of the good guys (the civil rights and environmental groups etc) and leave profit making companies unprotected, but as we've been discussing that would allow corporations to set up non-profit subsidiaries or shell companies and do their dirty work through these intermediaries.

The rules say that our proposal cannot contradict UM's resolution, nor rely on it in such a way that it would become nonsensical if UM's resolution were to be repealed. That's why the text has to talk fairly vaguely about "whatever resolutions are currently in force."

Essentially, what I'm hearing is that this entire piece of legislation rides off of the back of United Massachusetts' "Protecting Free Expression" and previous resolutions expanding human rights with a tiny change, applying said rights to groups rather than just individuals.

I'm opposed to this sort of legislation for two reasons. Firstly, as I said before, it relies entirely on previous legislation (even though your preamble seems to imply that it's mostly focused towards "Protecting Free Expression"). Not only would this proposal be completely null and void if that resolution and others were repealed, but this entire piece of legislation seems lazy and thoughtless because nothing original or constructive is being done here. Secondly, I don't see how rights given to individuals would not apply, in certain respects, to groups. Even as an organization, a political party, under "Protecting Free Expression" may still openly share its views through speech and other forms of expression as an individual would.

Zone 71 wrote:Essentially, what I'm hearing is that this entire piece of legislation rides off of the back of United Massachusetts' "Protecting Free Expression" and previous resolutions expanding human rights with a tiny change, applying said rights to groups rather than just individuals.

I'm opposed to this sort of legislation for two reasons. Firstly, as I said before, it relies entirely on previous legislation (even though your preamble seems to imply that it's mostly focused towards "Protecting Free Expression"). Not only would this proposal be completely null and void if that resolution and others were repealed, but this entire piece of legislation seems lazy and thoughtless because nothing original or constructive is being done here. Secondly, I don't see how rights given to individuals would not apply, in certain respects, to groups. Even as an organization, a political party, under "Protecting Free Expression" may still openly share its views through speech and other forms of expression as an individual would.

OOC: So you're alleging a House of Cards violation (in that if a previous resolution were repealed, this one would become useless or nonsensical). I don't see it at first glance. Can you be more specific as to what parts of this resolution would suddenly be as baseless as Wile E. Coyote when his rocket fuel runs out off the edge of a cliff, if some previous resolution suddenly got the kibosh?

Zone 71 wrote:Essentially, what I'm hearing is that this entire piece of legislation rides off of the back of United Massachusetts' "Protecting Free Expression" and previous resolutions expanding human rights with a tiny change, applying said rights to groups rather than just individuals.

I'm opposed to this sort of legislation for two reasons. Firstly, as I said before, it relies entirely on previous legislation (even though your preamble seems to imply that it's mostly focused towards "Protecting Free Expression"). Not only would this proposal be completely null and void if that resolution and others were repealed, but this entire piece of legislation seems lazy and thoughtless because nothing original or constructive is being done here. Secondly, I don't see how rights given to individuals would not apply, in certain respects, to groups. Even as an organization, a political party, under "Protecting Free Expression" may still openly share its views through speech and other forms of expression as an individual would.

This proposal doesn't rely on UM's resolution at all. It simply is born out of a decision to separate the question of free speech into multiple resolutions. Unless you can name a specific clause in this proposal that relies on "Protecting Free Expression", your House of Cards claim is invalid.

Zone 71 wrote: Essentially, what I'm hearing is that this entire piece of legislation rides off of the back of United Massachusetts' "Protecting Free Expression" and previous resolutions expanding human rights with a tiny change, applying said rights to groups rather than just individuals. ... I don't see how rights given to individuals would not apply, in certain respects, to groups. Even as an organization, a political party, under "Protecting Free Expression" may still openly share its views through speech and other forms of expression as an individual would.

I'll leave the others to address the question of this proposal's reliance on other resolutions. It's important, however, to be clear that what you said there is completely untrue. The main clause (clause 3) of Protecting Free Expression "prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression" (my emphasis). If you can find anything in there that assures the rights of a political party or any other organisation then please point me to it.

What this means is that, as of now, you can't be prevented from or punished for writing a play. You can't get it performed in a theatre, however, because the theatre is not an individual and the government can restrict its freedom of expression as much as it chooses. You can't publish the script unless you're rich enough to do so with your own resources because publishing companies can also be restricted as much as the government wants. Similar restrictions on ISPs and web hosting services mean that you might have to be creative in order make the script available online. So your personal freedom of expression is pretty limited in practice without the kind of protections contained in this proposal. I don't consider that to be a "tiny" change.

OK, some edits. Firstly the addition of Oxford commas and a little extra general tidying up.

Secondly, I've added the following definition: "A reasonable restriction on free expression is one that does not limit expression in significantly more circumstances than necessary in order to achieve its objective". It occurs to me that the disagreement I have with Imperium Anglorum is that he suggests some restrictions are unreasonable by their nature whereas I'm talking about restrictions being reasonable by their degree. I'm adding this definition to avoid there being a colourable argument that the restrictions that are essential to the proposal might be interpreted as unreasonable.

Thirdly, I've changed the clause I was discussing with Christian Democrats to "Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons in order to prevent disproportionate influence on government by profit making organisations and those acting under their direction or on their behalf." With respect to CD's suggestions I've decided to avoid "corrupting" as an unhelpfully emotive term. This is also intended to capture the fact that it's entirely reasonable for corporations to make representations to the government. It only becomes problematic when their influence is disproportionately greater than that of others because of the money at their disposal.

Could definition (d) be amended so that it matches the subsequent clauses on regulation?


Next, could the health exception be expanded to health and safety?

Finally, could "profit making" be changed to "profit-making"?

Christian Democrats wrote:Could definition (d) be amended so that it matches the subsequent clauses on regulation?

Reasonable restrictions on the commercial or political expression of legal persons are restrictions that do not limit more expression than necessary in order to achieve their legitimate objectives.

Next, could the health exception be expanded to health and safety?

Finally, could "profit making" be changed to "profit-making"?

Yes, that all looks reasonable. Thank you.

Wallenburg wrote:

Zone 71 wrote:Essentially, what I'm hearing is that this entire piece of legislation rides off of the back of United Massachusetts' "Protecting Free Expression" and previous resolutions expanding human rights with a tiny change, applying said rights to groups rather than just individuals.

I'm opposed to this sort of legislation for two reasons. Firstly, as I said before, it relies entirely on previous legislation (even though your preamble seems to imply that it's mostly focused towards "Protecting Free Expression"). Not only would this proposal be completely null and void if that resolution and others were repealed, but this entire piece of legislation seems lazy and thoughtless because nothing original or constructive is being done here. Secondly, I don't see how rights given to individuals would not apply, in certain respects, to groups. Even as an organization, a political party, under "Protecting Free Expression" may still openly share its views through speech and other forms of expression as an individual would.

This proposal doesn't rely on UM's resolution at all. It simply is born out of a decision to separate the question of free speech into multiple resolutions. Unless you can name a specific clause in this proposal that relies on "Protecting Free Expression", your House of Cards claim is invalid.

Of the three clauses following the "Hereby" line, the first defines some terms, and the third clarifies that this proposal would not "prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations." The second clause, the meat of the proposal, mandates that groups will be "protected to the same extent, and may be subject to the same restrictions, as the free expression of individuals under the provision of unrepealed World Assembly resolutions."

While I cannot speak for the Secretariat, I believe that, given that this proposal is focused around taking existing resolutions and extending their mandates to groups and organizations, this legislation would be in violation of the House of Cards rule.

Zone 71 wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:This proposal doesn't rely on UM's resolution at all. It simply is born out of a decision to separate the question of free speech into multiple resolutions. Unless you can name a specific clause in this proposal that relies on "Protecting Free Expression", your House of Cards claim is invalid.

Of the three clauses following the "Hereby" line, the first defines some terms, and the third clarifies that this proposal would not "prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations." The second clause, the meat of the proposal, mandates that groups will be "protected to the same extent, and may be subject to the same restrictions, as the free expression of individuals under the provision of unrepealed World Assembly resolutions."

While I cannot speak for the Secretariat, I believe that, given that this proposal is focused around taking existing resolutions and extending their mandates to groups and organizations, this legislation would be in violation of the House of Cards rule.

We have language that can address this if it becomes an issue, but as two members of GenSec have already weighed in it seems unlikely.

If the substance of the proposal was to extend the provisions of GA #436 to groups as well as individuals then it would indeed be in violation of the house of cards rule. As it's worded, if GA #436 were to be repealed and replaced with a different resolution on the free expression of individuals, this proposal would extend the provisions of that resolution to groups as well as individuals.

I'm confident that this is legal. With submission imminent, if you disagree then the time to submit a formal challenge is probably now.

Uan aa Boa wrote:If the substance of the proposal was to extend the provisions of GA #436 to groups as well as individuals then it would indeed be in violation of the house of cards rule. As it's worded, if GA #436 were to be repealed and replaced with a different resolution on the free expression of individuals, this proposal would extend the provisions of that resolution to groups as well as individuals.

I'm confident that this is legal. With submission imminent, if you disagree then the time to submit a formal challenge is probably now.

The House of Cards rule states that "Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent." While, again, I cannot speak for the Secretariat, even if none of the resolutions this proposal affects would likely never be repealed, that doesn't take away from the fact that a crucial part of your proposal, if not the entirety of it, is built upon several GA resolutions.

Zone 71 wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:If the substance of the proposal was to extend the provisions of GA #436 to groups as well as individuals then it would indeed be in violation of the house of cards rule. As it's worded, if GA #436 were to be repealed and replaced with a different resolution on the free expression of individuals, this proposal would extend the provisions of that resolution to groups as well as individuals.

I'm confident that this is legal. With submission imminent, if you disagree then the time to submit a formal challenge is probably now.

The House of Cards rule states that "Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent." While, again, I cannot speak for the Secretariat, even if none of the resolutions this proposal affects would likely never be repealed, that doesn't take away from the fact that a crucial part of your proposal, if not the entirety of it, is built upon several GA resolutions.

One test that has been employed in the past is whether a resolution would have an effect if every other resolution were repealed. This proposal seems to meet that test since it would afford equal protection to the free speech rights of legal persons. A nation could not, in its domestic laws, discriminate between the speech of natural persons and legal persons, save upon the exceptions listed in this proposal.

EDIT: On second thought, though, the author might want to rework the bit on "under the provision of unrepealed World Assembly resolutions."

Christian Democrats wrote:EDIT: On second thought, though, the author might want to rework the bit on "under the provision of unrepealed World Assembly resolutions."

That would be the "language that can address this if it becomes an issue"

Christian Democrats wrote:On second thought, though, the author might want to rework the bit on "under the provision of unrepealed World Assembly resolutions."

OK, I've removed those words. I'm less than ecstatic about this but erring on the side of safety. Thanks again for you input.