NationStates

I would agree if you said it was an incitement to a crime or unlawful action, but it is possible to hate someone or something without an unlawful action. For example, I hate pineapple on pizza and believe that people who enjoy this abomination are the lowest form of life. However those are my personal beliefs. I have not committed a crime. But if I make this argument there are some in this chamber who would join me and others who would not. I do not call for violence against the pro-pineapple pizza people, but I do not go to their pizza parties and any pizza party that caters to this crowd. Have I committed a crime under your proposed law? What if I am leading a group of ambassadors who agree with my pizza preferences? If I tell them this is my plan and I encourage my group members to do the same? What if one of my followers beats up a pro-pineapple pizza Ambassador? Shall I be blamed even if I was on vacation at the time? What if he was inspired by my passionate hatred for such a disgusting food item to do such a heinous deed? Shall I be considered culpable to the crime for inspiring such actions? Even if I never once advocated for violence against these people? Shall I be a criminal then?

Your problem Ambassador is that you do not define your crime. I neither understand what inciting others to hate means nor do I believe you understand. We have moved from defining and restricting commercial speech to attempting to violate individual speech so long as it is a united individual speech. I believe no one would say that it is right for anyone to beat up someone for an element of their character that is of little consequence, except for in jest, as you will never silence an anti-pineapple pizza supporter. But where is the line in my choice of association and the choice of association of others who agree with me. After all we are not patronizing businesses that cater to certain people and that I believe is acceptable for us to do. We are not silent in our opposition and we probably put out literature regarding our belief. In doing so, did I cause others to hate? I would say no... pineapple on pizza has been contentious since the introduction of the two food items in an event I would classify as the worst crime committed by Canada in all of human history. I would argue I merely gave a place for other, noble-minded individuals to speak their peace on pizza.

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Under the mandates clause b, could you add age and profession to the list of the protected characteristics. The former because of ageism, and the latter because, at least historically, any job considered “immodest” was liable to huge persecution. Also, could you number your active clauses please.)

Sorry, but I'm definitely not including profession. It would be wholly inappropriate to stop a comedian ranting about politicians, bankers or traffic wardens. I'd need a lot of persuading to include age as well. I'm not taking all the categories from anti-discrimination law here, I'm focused on serious hate speech. Give me examples if you'd like, but I'm not aware of the elderly being significantly on the receiving end of what LGBT+ people or immigrants are more often subjected to.

(OOC: On the comedian topic, comedians aren’t legal persons, they are natural ones. I can’t think of an example where a legal person should be allowed to “incite hatred” against a profession. Though, that is a split issue for me. On the topic of age, there are numerous examples of discrimination, which does occasionally reach LGB+, immigration status, race or any other more traditionally discriminated against characteristic. There is also less protection against ageism than racism, sexism, ableism etc. because it is recognised less. Also, this isn’t mandated for every member state, just allowed for those that wish to restrict it.)

To the ambassador from Liberimery I would point out that the resolution permits restrictions on the incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment. The eating of pineapple on pizza does not appear on that list. This is not the first objection the ambassador has raised that is answered by simply reading the text of the proposal.

I can assure the ambassador that I do understand what incitement to hate is. To incite means to rouse or stir up, from the Latin citare, and I assume the ambassador understands what hatred is. If necessary I believe the ambassador would be able to purchase a dictionary from the bookshop in the foyer. It would be possible to contend that your nation should be governed exclusively by white people, that immigration should be banned, homosexuality outlawed, gender reassignment unworthy of public funding, Catholics forbidden from frequenting bakeries etc etc without inciting hatred (some of my best friends are black/gay/whatever). In implementing such suggestions you might run into difficulties with other WA resolutions, especially GA #30, but this proposal would not trouble you as long as you didn't incite hatred for any of these groups. Assuming your nation had imposed any restrictions which, as we've said, it doesn't have to do.

To the ambassador from Kenmoria I would point out that while a comedian is indeed an individual, and permitted by Protecting Free Expression to perform her routine in the street without fear of sanction, if she intends to appear in a theatre, or have her material broadcast, or published, or hosted online then she will need to do so through the auspices of legal persons.

Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm not aware of the elderly being significantly on the receiving end of what LGBT+ people or immigrants are more often subjected to.

OOC
There are nations in NS that, due to how their players answered one issue, kill their elderly...

Uan aa Boa wrote:To the ambassador from Liberimery I would point out that the resolution permits restrictions on the incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment. The eating of pineapple on pizza does not appear on that list. This is not the first objection the ambassador has raised that is answered by simply reading the text of the proposal.

I can assure the ambassador that I do understand what incitement to hate is. To incite means to rouse or stir up, from the Latin citare, and I assume the ambassador understands what hatred is. If necessary I believe the ambassador would be able to purchase a dictionary from the bookshop in the foyer. It would be possible to contend that your nation should be governed exclusively by white people, that immigration should be banned, homosexuality outlawed, gender reassignment unworthy of public funding, Catholics forbidden from frequenting bakeries etc etc without inciting hatred (some of my best friends are black/gay/whatever). In implementing such suggestions you might run into difficulties with other WA resolutions, especially GA #30, but this proposal would not trouble you as long as you didn't incite hatred for any of these groups. Assuming your nation had imposed any restrictions which, as we've said, it doesn't have to do.

To the ambassador from Kenmoria I would point out that while a comedian is indeed an individual, and permitted by Protecting Free Expression to perform her routine in the street without fear of sanction, if she intends to appear in a theatre, or have her material broadcast, or published, or hosted online then she will need to do so through the auspices of legal persons.

My question ambassador is that you fail to define what is unacceptable censorship of speech you do not want. I ask about pizza as a substitute because if I ask about something defined otherwise, you will mark me a bigot and dismiss my claims. You have just now espoused your own hatred of my people, a majority of who are mixed raced. Shall I condem you as a racist Xenophobe for your opinion that only whites support absolute free speech? There are more women in public office than men in my nation. Are you sexist because women do not fight for free speech? Your attack on my people up to ignorance. And unlike you, I would not call for your censure from such a vile attack.

Your accusation betrays your own bias ambassador. You can't even answer me where the line is between acceptable action and unacceptable action. You e already said that this was association speak and now you moved to ban comedians that you don't find funny. If you cannot stand the newly voted on Free Speech, than have the God Damn courage to petition for its repeal, rather than your cowardly attempts to undermine it with your constant rewrites of your own legislation.

The Boani ambassador takes a deep breath with the air of someone mentally counting to ten.

I'm not sure what accusation or attack I'm supposed to have made. Perhaps when I said "It would be possible to contend that your nation should be governed exclusively by white people, that immigration should be banned, homosexuality outlawed, gender reassignment unworthy of public funding, Catholics forbidden from frequenting bakeries etc etc" you thought I was saying that your government or people believe or contend those things. I wasn't. If that isn't the source of the confusion then frankly I'm baffled. I will make one last attempt to explain this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "association speak" but if you read the proposal you'll find it concerns expression by legal persons i.e. entities other than individuals that are able to have rights and obligations under your nation's legal system. You ask me about the line between acceptable and unacceptable action. Referring you again to the proposal text, you'll read there that a nation can enact restrictions in order to prevent one of three specific things, provided that they don't restrict significantly more instances of expression than necessary to achieve that objective. A comedian cannot be banned because I or anyone else think they're not funny, but a nation could under this proposal enact laws against legal persons (theatres, publishers, broadcasters, web hosts etc) disseminating a comedy routine that (for example) incites anti-Semitic hatred.

I stress again that this resolution does not ban anything. It allows member nations to take certain specified actions if they wish. If your nation would prefer absolute and no-holds-barred free speech then this resolution will not stand in your way. In opposing the clauses on incitement of hatred and denial of genocide, you are saying to other sovereign nations that they must not restrict such practices in any circumstances, no matter what the specific situation of their society is, even if the country is a powder keg of ethnic or sectarian tension. I would suggest that yours is the more draconian approach to take.

I don't wish to repeal Protecting Freedom of Expression and this proposal does not seek to undermine it. I think this proposal compliments it - no government will be permitted to criminalise hate speech by individuals in everyday conversation but governments will have the option to place restrictions on the organised dissemination of material that seeks to incite hatred. That seems to me an appropriate balance.

Far from restricting free speech this proposal significantly extends it since, until such time as the Assembly passes legislation on the free expression of legal persons, governments are free to censor opposition political parties, close down theatres, silence civil rights organisations and many other examples. If you want to support free speech this is an effort you should do something to help with instead of shouting "no, no, no" from the sidelines.

As for my "constant rewrites," that's called drafting and it's what this forum is for. You will notice that many ambassadors have assisted with this process, as good legislation is often a collective effort.

I don't wish to continue our debate because you aren't contributing to the draft, you're simply stating continual opposition based on a limited understanding of what is being proposed. I would ask you to pause and make a small effort to understand what's being said and why rather than just searching for things you can protest about, but it seems a vain hope. You have every right to vote against should this proposal make it quorum.

Bears Armed wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm not aware of the elderly being significantly on the receiving end of what LGBT+ people or immigrants are more often subjected to.

OOC
There are nations in NS that, due to how their players answered one issue, kill their elderly...

That's was quiet common in real nations too.

Uan aa Boa wrote:The Boani ambassador takes a deep breath with the air of someone mentally counting to ten.

I'm not sure what accusation or attack I'm supposed to have made. Perhaps when I said "It would be possible to contend that your nation should be governed exclusively by white people, that immigration should be banned, homosexuality outlawed, gender reassignment unworthy of public funding, Catholics forbidden from frequenting bakeries etc etc" you thought I was saying that your government or people believe or contend those things. I wasn't. If that isn't the source of the confusion then frankly I'm baffled. I will make one last attempt to explain this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "association speak" but if you read the proposal you'll find it concerns expression by legal persons i.e. entities other than individuals that are able to have rights and obligations under your nation's legal system. You ask me about the line between acceptable and unacceptable action. Referring you again to the proposal text, you'll read there that a nation can enact restrictions in order to prevent one of three specific things, provided that they don't restrict significantly more instances of expression than necessary to achieve that objective. A comedian cannot be banned because I or anyone else think they're not funny, but a nation could under this proposal enact laws against legal persons (theatres, publishers, broadcasters, web hosts etc) disseminating a comedy routine that (for example) incites anti-Semitic hatred.

I stress again that this resolution does not ban anything. It allows member nations to take certain specified actions if they wish. If your nation would prefer absolute and no-holds-barred free speech then this resolution will not stand in your way. In opposing the clauses on incitement of hatred and denial of genocide, you are saying to other sovereign nations that they must not restrict such practices in any circumstances, no matter what the specific situation of their society is, even if the country is a powder keg of ethnic or sectarian tension. I would suggest that yours is the more draconian approach to take.

I don't wish to repeal Protecting Freedom of Expression and this proposal does not seek to undermine it. I think this proposal compliments it - no government will be permitted to criminalise hate speech by individuals in everyday conversation but governments will have the option to place restrictions on the organised dissemination of material that seeks to incite hatred. That seems to me an appropriate balance.

Far from restricting free speech this proposal significantly extends it since, until such time as the Assembly passes legislation on the free expression of legal persons, governments are free to censor opposition political parties, close down theatres, silence civil rights organisations and many other examples. If you want to support free speech this is an effort you should do something to help with instead of shouting "no, no, no" from the sidelines.

As for my "constant rewrites," that's called drafting and it's what this forum is for. You will notice that many ambassadors have assisted with this process, as good legislation is often a collective effort.

I don't wish to continue our debate because you aren't contributing to the draft, you're simply stating continual opposition based on a limited understanding of what is being proposed. I would ask you to pause and make a small effort to understand what's being said and why rather than just searching for things you can protest about, but it seems a vain hope. You have every right to vote against should this proposal make it quorum.

Any effort to restrict hate speech undermines existing free speech protections. We will not support it because the principle of free speech is protecting the right to hold and voice opinions society does not agree with, so long as such speech does not advocate for clear and imminent dangers. Hearing naughty words does not reach such a danger. An association is a group of individuals and covers organizations you seek to cover. As all organizations are nothing more than at least one individual they should not lose their rights we enshrined because they join together willingly for a cause. You even advocated that a single comedian constitutes a legal person, which shows your intent is not to extend similar protections to groups, but to limit speech that is protected currently.

Your original draft was to recognize commercial speech as speech that is not protected when a seller falsely claims their product can or cannot perform a function. This we support. But we do not support making a company illegal because their are views held by that company that are deemed hateful. All of your restrictions are on political speech and belief. Even if you do not like those beliefs, it is for society, not the government, to punish.

Remove the hate speech and genocide clauses and this can be workable. Right now, these issues are possibly illegal under current free speech resolution.

Liberimery wrote:Remove the hate speech and genocide clauses and this can be workable. Right now, these issues are possibly illegal under current free speech resolution.

No they are not. Organizations are not individuals.

Wallenburg wrote:

Liberimery wrote:Remove the hate speech and genocide clauses and this can be workable. Right now, these issues are possibly illegal under current free speech resolution.

No they are not. Organizations are not individuals.

Than who sets their policies, I ask you?

Liberimery wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:No they are not. Organizations are not individuals.

Than who sets their policies, I ask you?

"What?" asks Ogenbond, thrown off by such a bizarre response.

Organisations are made up of individuals. I can understand the philosophical argument that organisations deserve free speech rights because they are composed of individuals. It's a similar argument to the one that states have moral imperatives because they are composed of people, who have moral imperatives.

For

While many of the principles of such a proposal are in line with what we believe, the actual proposal is far to vague and incomplete for such a thing to support.

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

NewLakotah wrote:While many of the principles of such a proposal are in line with what we believe, the actual proposal is far to vague and incomplete for such a thing to support.

Pretty much. Against.

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

“Lovely to see that the delegation from the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators is upholding the values of democracy, standing firm against oppression and corruption. In any case, Freedom of Expression for Organisations explicitly allows member nations to pass no restrictions at all on legal persons save for those applied to natural persons.”

To fellow respected WA members,

The Armed Republic of Greater Cascadiana denounces this proposal. Regulation pertaining to our freedom to define so-called "freedom of expression" is considered farcical as we have recently outlawed the expression "laughter."

Death to democracy,
Patrice Lumumba
Acquaintance of the CIA and MI6

Lmao, why even propose this if you specifically bailed out all of the prohibitions on speech that you want to outlaw?

Nope. I won't vote for this.

Auralia is opposed to any proposal declaring that associations of individuals have fewer free speech rights than individuals themselves. Individuals should not lose their free speech rights simply because they decide to exercise them in association with others.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Only to some degree does Fardhin agree, as we believe that Freedom of Expression should extend to what one might call hate speech or denial. After all, who are we to decide what is hate speech and what is not? There are certain ethno-states that call any criticism of their actions "hate speech".

Fardhin wrote:After all, who are we to decide what is hate speech and what is not? There are certain ethno-states that call any criticism of their actions "hate speech".

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.

The discussions in this thread having been reduced to petty bickering, I nevertheless vote against as too arbitrarily restrictive and poorly worded.

Changed my mind voting against.

I consider the reasonable freedom vague and its slippery slope to curtail advertising

This also limits amount of funding for politicians and favors unions over corporations influencing the government

I like the draft process

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Fardhin wrote:After all, who are we to decide what is hate speech and what is not? There are certain ethno-states that call any criticism of their actions "hate speech".

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?