[PASSED] Wartime Journalism Protection Act

[Lyroidia]

"The People's Republic of Lyroidia supports this act, as maintaining transparency of the military's action in Lyroidia and maintaining a well-trusted press are valuable to the nation."

[Foril]

"The People's Republic of Lyroidia supports this act, as maintaining transparency of the military's action in Lyroidia and maintaining a well-trusted press are valuable to the nation."

“Foril thanks Lyroidia for their support.”

[Kenmoria]

“I think the proposal would look better with line breaks between clauses 2, 3 and 4. That is my only objection.”

[Foril]

“I think the proposal would look better with line breaks between clauses 2, 3 and 4. That is my only objection.”

Fixed.

[Foril]

As promised, submitted.

[Honeydewistania]

Is someone able to determine if the category is correct? It doesn't really read as 'Education and Creativity' or 'A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts', although maybe I'm just dumb.

Also, are you campaigning for this?

[Maowi]

Is someone able to determine if the category is correct? It doesn't really read as 'Education and Creativity' or 'A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts', although maybe I'm just dumb.

Also, are you campaigning for this?

OOC: I'm helping Fori out with an API campaign for this because he doesn't have access to a device to leave running for long enough. Also, I'm pretty sure the "Free Press" AoE for the Education and Creativity category is explicitly designed for this sort of thing.

[Honeydewistania]

Is someone able to determine if the category is correct? It doesn't really read as 'Education and Creativity' or 'A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts', although maybe I'm just dumb.

Also, are you campaigning for this?

OOC: I'm helping Fori out with an API campaign for this because he doesn't have access to a device to leave running for long enough. Also, I'm pretty sure the "Free Press" AoE for the Education and Creativity category is explicitly designed for this sort of thing.

Yeah, what I thought. Just hard to paint warzone as a place for education and creativity, but I guess I'm narrow minded

[Tinfect]

"The legislation continues to mandate that Member-States allow Civilians to deliberately endanger themselves and the lives of military personnel by wandering freely about active warzones. The Imperium is opposed, as would be any Member-State with genuine concern for the lives of either group."

[Mathuvan Union]

Is someone able to determine if the category is correct? It doesn't really read as 'Education and Creativity' or 'A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts', although maybe I'm just dumb.

Also, are you campaigning for this?

OOC: it's subset it Free Press, so presumably its the correct category. journalism is a art

[Ardiveds]

Is someone able to determine if the category is correct? It doesn't really read as 'Education and Creativity' or 'A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts', although maybe I'm just dumb.

Also, are you campaigning for this?

OOC: it's subset it Free Press, so presumably its the correct category. journalism is a art

OOC: The art of avoiding artillery shells while harassing soldiers with idiotic questions.

[Mathuvan Union]

OOC: it's subset it Free Press, so presumably its the correct category. journalism is a art

OOC: The art of avoiding artillery shells while harassing soldiers with idiotic questions.

OOC: now that's a skill I want

[Owarinai]

You can rest assured that The People's Republic of Owarinai will fully support this proposal. The fact that such a proposal haven't been passed in the past is honestly astonishing.

With regards, The People's Republic of Owarinai

[Maowi]

"The legislation continues to mandate that Member-States allow Civilians to deliberately endanger themselves and the lives of military personnel by wandering freely about active warzones. The Imperium is opposed, as would be any Member-State with genuine concern for the lives of either group."

"In the course of their work, wartime journalists carry out a valuable task for any developed society, and I believe the exemptions specified in the proposal amply safeguard the military personnel involved. If citizens are permitted to put their lives very much on the line to further a state's military interests, I do not see the distinction that should make it impermissible for citizens to risk their lives to provide the similarly valuable service of wartime coverage."

[Foril]

You can rest assured that The People's Republic of Owarinai will fully support this proposal. The fact that such a proposal haven't been passed in the past is honestly astonishing.

With regards, The People's Republic of Owarinai

IC: "Foril thanks Owarinai for their support, and shares Owarinai's astonishment in that there has never been such a proposal passed in the past.

[Flying Eagles]

We support in full. Transparency is vital in war; the opponents to this resolution are likely just trying to deflect from undesirable acts committed by their military. Anyways, this is a free world, and if a journalist wants to be dumb and get themselves killed, that's not our business.

[Araraukar]

Transparency is vital in war

"I am sure that whatever enemies you might go into war with, will thank you for your journalists leaking all your troop movements to the international media."

the opponents to this resolution are likely just trying to deflect from undesirable acts committed by their military

"Araraukar doesn't even have a military. We still don't think that letting civilians wander around war zones is a good idea."

Anyways, this is a free world, and if a journalist wants to be dumb and get themselves killed, that's not our business.

"It hasn't been and won't be a free world to any WA nation, but agreed on the natural selection part. Of course a soldier could always shoot a journalist in the back of their head and then claim a weapon malfunction. In my understanding accidental friendly fire is a thing that happens occasionally..."

OOC: Do note that the above is pure RP, I personally don't condone any shooting of people, accidental or on purpose.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4d is a rather huge loophole. A journalist going almost anywhere will harm militaristic activities to at least some extent, since that is the tradeoff that is made: between the effectiveness of soldiers and freedom of information. Because this makes the proposal less useful than it could otherwise be, I won’t be supporting the legislation at this time.”

[Maowi]

"I am sure that whatever enemies you might go into war with, will thank you for your journalists leaking all your troop movements to the international media."

"If publishing this information has adverse effects on your nation's military efforts, it would be perfectly within your administration's rights to block its release. And if not, I'm afraid I don't see the problem."

“Clause 4d is a rather huge loophole. A journalist going almost anywhere will harm militaristic activities to at least some extent, since that is the tradeoff that is made: between the effectiveness of soldiers and freedom of information. Because this makes the proposal less useful than it could otherwise be, I won’t be supporting the legislation at this time.”

"Personally, I'm not sure a journalist's mere presence in a war zone - which is what clause 4.d. refers to - necessarily has to result in harm to military efforts. The proposal tasks journalists with making sure they are compliant, if they are to receive its protections; ensuring utmost caution and discretion they would still be able to access those areas they need to for their reporting."

[Foril]

We support in full. Transparency is vital in war; the opponents to this resolution are likely just trying to deflect from undesirable acts committed by their military. Anyways, this is a free world, and if a journalist wants to be dumb and get themselves killed, that's not our business.

“Foril thanks the nation of Flying Eagles for their support, and agree in full with all the points laid out here.”

“Clause 4d is a rather huge loophole. A journalist going almost anywhere will harm militaristic activities to at least some extent, since that is the tradeoff that is made: between the effectiveness of soldiers and freedom of information. Because this makes the proposal less useful than it could otherwise be, I won’t be supporting the legislation at this time.”

I think Maowi describes it well, if you’d like more explanation I am happy to provide it.

[Tinfect]

"In the course of their work, wartime journalists carry out a valuable task for any developed society, and I believe the exemptions specified in the proposal amply safeguard the military personnel involved. If citizens are permitted to put their lives very much on the line to further a state's military interests, I do not see the distinction that should make it impermissible for citizens to risk their lives to provide the similarly valuable service of wartime coverage."

"What possible task could they carry out that could not be handled though means that do not put Imperial lives at risk, Ambassador? How is it so valuable if the Imperium has done without it for hundreds of years? Soldiers are specifically trained to perform a service to the Imperium, and intentionally deployed to fulfill that service. Any random civilian declaring themselves a journalist is neither, and should not be anywhere near a battlefield for any reason. The Imperium is fully capable of handling reporting through established Military and Civil Oversight channels.

We - er, Imperial Soldiers, have an absolute obligation to protect Civilian lives on a warzone. It is illegal for us to allow citizens to wander them freely, and it is illegal for us not to provide military escort and protection for citizens stuck in battlefields. Any reasonable country would do the same; I don't see why having any regard for Civilian and military lives is considered unreasonable by you foreigners."

[Maowi]

"What possible task could they carry out that could not be handled though means that do not put Imperial lives at risk, Ambassador? How is it so valuable if the Imperium has done without it for hundreds of years? Soldiers are specifically trained to perform a service to the Imperium, and intentionally deployed to fulfill that service. Any random civilian declaring themselves a journalist is neither, and should not be anywhere near a battlefield for any reason. The Imperium is fully capable of handling reporting through established Military and Civil Oversight channels.

"A state's ability to carry out wartime journalists' jobs for them is irrelevant. Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt the information reported via state-regulated channels will be the same as that reported by independent journalists. The proposal in question leaves ample room for reasonably preventing journalists from getting themselves into situations of imminent danger."

We - er, Imperial Soldiers, have an absolute obligation to protect Civilian lives on a warzone. It is illegal for us to allow citizens to wander them freely, and it is illegal for us not to provide military escort and protection for citizens stuck in battlefields. Any reasonable country would do the same; I don't see why having any regard for Civilian and military lives is considered unreasonable by you foreigners."

"I myself don't see anything in the proposal barring the Imperium from imposing limits to journalists' "wandering," nor does it prohibit states at any point from providing them with military protection."

[Refuge Isle]

This resolution seems to try to grant two abilities that arguably already existed in most people's nations:

"Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement in war zones and will not be denied access to an area to report on events there"

and

"Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone"

The entire rest of the resolution just talks about when those shouldn't apply. What constitutes espionage, what can be considered a weapon, and who is to decide these things? Presumably the government of the country the journalist is in, right? Can a government official or military officer take a screwdriver out of my camera van and call it a weapon while saying my reporting was spying on the state? Seems like a pretty big concern.

“Clause 4d is a rather huge loophole. A journalist going almost anywhere will harm militaristic activities to at least some extent, since that is the tradeoff that is made: between the effectiveness of soldiers and freedom of information. Because this makes the proposal less useful than it could otherwise be, I won’t be supporting the legislation at this time.”

I feel the same way about 4d as I do with Clause 3:

"3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts."

So, in my mind, journalism is necessary to tell people about what's happening. The most important pieces of information in those circumstances are going to be the ones that indicate wrongdoing or report threats to civilian lives and such. Journalism in the category of reporting "wrongdoing and threats to civilian lives" is also going to be in the category of "jeopardisation of military efforts" if a warring government feels like their casual atrocities being reported creates a vulnerability in their war operations. If I were a totalitarian regime trying to carry out a genocide, I don't think I'd be concerned by this resolution, because I can still call on a vague argument about military goals to lock out reporters.

I'm just not sure if this resolution provides any measurable benefit to journalists.

[Foril]

This resolution seems to try to grant two abilities that arguably already existed in most people's nations:

"Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement in war zones and will not be denied access to an area to report on events there"

and

"Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone"

The entire rest of the resolution just talks about when those shouldn't apply. What constitutes espionage, what can be considered a weapon, and who is to decide these things? Presumably the government of the country the journalist is in, right? Can a government official or military officer take a screwdriver out of my camera van and call it a weapon while saying my reporting was spying on the state? Seems like a pretty big concern.

“Clause 4d is a rather huge loophole. A journalist going almost anywhere will harm militaristic activities to at least some extent, since that is the tradeoff that is made: between the effectiveness of soldiers and freedom of information. Because this makes the proposal less useful than it could otherwise be, I won’t be supporting the legislation at this time.”

I feel the same way about 4d as I do with Clause 3:

"3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts."

So, in my mind, journalism is necessary to tell people about what's happening. The most important pieces of information in those circumstances are going to be the ones that indicate wrongdoing or report threats to civilian lives and such. Journalism in the category of reporting "wrongdoing and threats to civilian lives" is also going to be in the category of "jeopardisation of military efforts" if a warring government feels like their casual atrocities being reported creates a vulnerability war operations. If I were a totalitarian regime trying to carry out a genocide, I don't think I'd be concerned by this resolution, because I can still call on a vague argument about military goals to lock out reporters.

I'm just not sure if this resolution provides any measurable benefit to journalists.

Many WA nations are dictatorships, which means that journalist protection in those countries are often low or nonexistent. Furthermore, even if only one nation benefits from this, I argue that it’ll still have a positive effect.

Furthermore, the WA resolution here (viewtopic.php?p=35834891#p35834891/) lists what the “WA definition” of espionage is, and nations cannot apply their own twisted definition without violating that.

I hope this answers your concerns, otherwise let me know and I’ll try and go further in depth.

[Kenmoria]

This resolution seems to try to grant two abilities that arguably already existed in most people's nations:

"Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement in war zones and will not be denied access to an area to report on events there"

and

"Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone"

The entire rest of the resolution just talks about when those shouldn't apply. What constitutes espionage, what can be considered a weapon, and who is to decide these things? Presumably the government of the country the journalist is in, right? Can a government official or military officer take a screwdriver out of my camera van and call it a weapon while saying my reporting was spying on the state? Seems like a pretty big concern.


I feel the same way about 4d as I do with Clause 3:

"3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts."

So, in my mind, journalism is necessary to tell people about what's happening. The most important pieces of information in those circumstances are going to be the ones that indicate wrongdoing or report threats to civilian lives and such. Journalism in the category of reporting "wrongdoing and threats to civilian lives" is also going to be in the category of "jeopardisation of military efforts" if a warring government feels like their casual atrocities being reported creates a vulnerability war operations. If I were a totalitarian regime trying to carry out a genocide, I don't think I'd be concerned by this resolution, because I can still call on a vague argument about military goals to lock out reporters.

I'm just not sure if this resolution provides any measurable benefit to journalists.

Many WA nations are dictatorships, which means that journalist protection in those countries are often low or nonexistent. Furthermore, even if only one nation benefits from this, I argue that it’ll still have a positive effect.

Furthermore, the WA resolution here (viewtopic.php?p=35834891#p35834891/) lists what the “WA definition” of espionage is, and nations cannot apply their own twisted definition without violating that.

I hope this answers your concerns, otherwise let me know and I’ll try and go further in depth.

(OOC: Any definitions in GA resolutions apply to that resolution only. I agree with the idea that this proposal provides benefits to journalists in nations that may not have freedom of the press, to the extent allowed by previous legislation. However, I feel as though it would be possible for this proposal to further increase freedom of the press.)