NationStates

The World Assembly,

CONCERNED that there is currently no World Assembly legislation that protects wartime journalists,

HORRIFIED that wartime journalists may get wounded, kidnapped, or even killed on the frontline simply for doing their job, and

SEEKING to introduce better protections for wartime journalists to facilitate better transmission of information and better protection of lives,

HEREBY ENACTS the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "war zone" is an area in which acts of war are ongoing,
   2. "journalistic activities" are actions conducted with the express purpose of publishing information in the media, such as collecting information about the events of a war, interviewing local people and military personnel in the war zone, or taking photographs or videos of the war, and
   3. a "wartime journalist" is a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone.
2. 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, unless such restriction is absolutely necessary to prevent harm to individuals or they are trespassing on private property.
   
   
3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a warzone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts.
   
   
4. The protections enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 are subject to prior and standing international law. They shall not be granted to any wartime journalist who:
   
   1. commits espionage,
   2. is carrying weapons,
   3. interrupts active combat situations,
   4. enters or passes through any location, if doing so is likely to lead to imminent loss of life or harm to individuals, or to the jeopardisation of military efforts, or
   5. otherwise violates the provisions of this resolution.

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause six would allow journalists to report on matters in such a way that could endanger military or private property, or release military secrets that could harm the effectivity of a government’s defence.”

Foril wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause six would allow journalists to report on matters in such a way that could endanger military or private property, or release military secrets that could harm the effectivity of a government’s defence.”

“After debate in Foril, an edit has been added to clause six on the damage of property. The release of secrets that does not damage property or lives shouldn’t be blocked, according to the compromise reached.”

Grays Harbor wrote:

Foril wrote:
“After debate in Foril, an edit has been added to clause six on the damage of property. The release of secrets that does not damage property or lives shouldn’t be blocked, according to the compromise reached.”

Do you have the first clue what operational security is or how it works? Because this statement fair well indicates you do not.

Foril wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:Do you have the first clue what operational security is or how it works? Because this statement fair well indicates you do not.

I believe that if it doesn’t damage or harm property or life, then it should be released and public. Name one situation where neither are damaged but yet we still need to keep public.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Definitions ARE active clauses.

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 9 appears to suggest that member nations are not allowed to enact penalties for journalists that breach the standards of proper conducts. Is this intentional? Either way, I suggest changing it. Also, please put spaces between your clauses for easier reading.”

Flying Eagles wrote:

Foril wrote:I believe that if it doesn’t damage or harm property or life, then it should be released and public. Name one situation where neither are damaged but yet we still need to keep public.

This resolution would basically allow a journalist to leak an invasion plan, which wouldn’t kill anyone or damage any property, as it would force the country to replan the invasion. Of course, this makes it basically impossible to play any kind of military action as it can be leaked without repercussions unless the invasion is literally underway.

Also, we generally only number the active clauses and not the definitions

Flying Eagles wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Definitions ARE active clauses.

Thanks.

Also, we'd like to note that viewtopic.php?f=9&t=487100 was recently submitted, and if it passes, then this resolution will need to be edited

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 9 appears to suggest that member nations are not allowed to enact penalties for journalists that breach the standards of proper conducts. Is this intentional? Either way, I suggest changing it. Also, please put spaces between your clauses for easier reading.”

Foril wrote:NOTING that there currently isn't a World Assembly resolution to protect wartime journalists,

Foril wrote:CONCERNED that wartime journalists are currently without legal protection,

Foril wrote:HORRIFIED that some wartime journalists are getting wounded, kidnapped, or even killed while at battlefronts,

Foril wrote:SEEKING to give protection to wartime journalists in order for better protection of lives and better information,

Foril wrote:2. "Journalistic activities" in this resolution is defined as actions, such as taking notes of events in the war, interviewing local people and the military in the location of the war, and taking photographs or videos of the war scene, taken for the purpose of lawfully publicising in the media information about ongoing war.

Foril wrote:4. "Safe zone" in this resolution is defined as any area that is not a war zone.

Foril wrote:5. Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement throughout war zones, and must not be stopped unless trespassing on private property, or physically interrupting the fighting. This is subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

Foril wrote:6. Wartime journalists must be allowed to report on any material concerned with the war unless the material is on military plans still in the planning stage, or the release of the material may lead to loss of or harm to life and/or property, subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

Foril wrote:7. Wartime journalists may not carry weapons while undertaking journalistic activities, unless for self-defence.

Foril wrote:8. Wartime journalists may only stay in a war zone for as long as the journalistic activity or activities they are undertaking requires, and must return to a safe zone after undertaking these.

Tinfect wrote:

Foril wrote:NOTING that there currently isn't a World Assembly resolution to protect wartime journalists,

"And that's a good thing," said Rahlen, leaning awkwardly on a shorter, new-model pulse-rifle, "because civilians shouldn't be near a warzone for any reason whatsoever."

Foril wrote:CONCERNED that wartime journalists are currently without legal protection,

"Civilians intentionally wandering into warzones will be treated as either idiots or spies, as is considered appropriate, yes."

Foril wrote:HORRIFIED that some wartime journalists are getting wounded, kidnapped, or even killed while at battlefronts,

"Maybe they shouldn't go to them. Just a thought."

Foril wrote:SEEKING to give protection to wartime journalists in order for better protection of lives and better information,

"So do we; I'm sure you'll therefore be banning them from being anywhere near a battlefield."

Foril wrote:2. "Journalistic activities" in this resolution is defined as actions, such as taking notes of events in the war, interviewing local people and the military in the location of the war, and taking photographs or videos of the war scene, taken for the purpose of lawfully publicising in the media information about ongoing war.

"If it was taken in a battlefield, it's inherently unlawful, as it couldn't have been collected lawfully in the first place."

Foril wrote:4. "Safe zone" in this resolution is defined as any area that is not a war zone.

"That's... optimistic."

Foril wrote:5. Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement throughout war zones, and must not be stopped unless trespassing on private property, or physically interrupting the fighting. This is subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

"Absolutely not. Civilians are not permitted on battlefields, period. They don't get to go cozy up to the artillery, they don't get to be walking through firing lines; it isn't safe for them, and their presence actively makes it less safe for soldiers. This clause does nothing but put civilian lives at risk for no reason, and military lives at risk for trying to save them."

Foril wrote:6. Wartime journalists must be allowed to report on any material concerned with the war unless the material is on military plans still in the planning stage, or the release of the material may lead to loss of or harm to life and/or property, subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

"Absolutely not. Control over the flow of information is most critical during a war; journalists will get to report whatever the Military tells them they can report, and nothing more. A twenty-four hour news cycle of the casualty list is not how you win wars."

Foril wrote:7. Wartime journalists may not carry weapons while undertaking journalistic activities, unless for self-defence.

"Civilians may not carry weapons at all. They're civilians. If they're armed, they're combatants."

Foril wrote:8. Wartime journalists may only stay in a war zone for as long as the journalistic activity or activities they are undertaking requires, and must return to a safe zone after undertaking these.

"Why should they be allowed in a war zone at all? What possible benefit is there? What public good could be served by putting civilians directly in the line of fire? The Imperium actually gives a damn what happens to our Citizens, thank you; this legislation is absurd. We're opposed."

Foril wrote:“With all due respect, Rahlen, Foril also cares about its people. We just also like to give them journalistic freedom.”

1. Defines a "wartime journalist" as a civilian interested in reporting the progress of an ongoing war for the public, while doing so at their own risk,

2. Forbids combatants from intentionally killing or injuring wartime journalists, as long as it is reasonably avoidable,

3. Allows militaries to ban the access of wartime journalists to information that

1. is strategically important to military activities,
2. is protected by extant World Assembly resolutions as private, or
3. would place the life or safety of an individual in danger if publicized.

Foril wrote:“With all due respect, Rahlen, Foril also cares about its people. We just also like to give them journalistic freedom.”

Foril wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:This resolution would basically allow a journalist to leak an invasion plan, which wouldn’t kill anyone or damage any property, as it would force the country to replan the invasion. Of course, this makes it basically impossible to play any kind of military action as it can be leaked without repercussions unless the invasion is literally underway.

Also, we generally only number the active clauses and not the definitions

Would an edit to include invasion plans that haven't been undertaken yet in the list of prohibited items to report on be a good fix for this?

Tinfect wrote:

Foril wrote:“With all due respect, Rahlen, Foril also cares about its people. We just also like to give them journalistic freedom.”

"Clearly you don't, or your government wouldn't be allowing civilians to throw themselves haphazardly into warzones and put their lives, and the lives of your soldiers, at risk. This has nothing to do with 'journalistic freedom', it is a simple matter of whether Member-States are allowed to keep civilians clear of warzones or not; The Imperium will not have a thousand 'journalists' refusing to evacuate so that they can pose with the artillery. This legislation is fundamentally unacceptable to any Government that has even the remotest desire to protect its citizens."

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 5 should have a lot more exceptions than it does. If a military group are planning to use stealth to launch an attack on enemy positions, having a journalist follow isn’t at all conducive to maintaining the element of surprise. Also, clause 3 should end ‘be considered wartime journalists’, as ‘individuals’ is plural.”

Foril wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 5 should have a lot more exceptions than it does. If a military group are planning to use stealth to launch an attack on enemy positions, having a journalist follow isn’t at all conducive to maintaining the element of surprise. Also, clause 3 should end ‘be considered wartime journalists’, as ‘individuals’ is plural.”

“Wouldn’t having a journalist follow a stealth mission technically be considered loss of life or property, as it would blow the cover? And fixed.”

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: If I'm reading it right, clause 6 prohibits journalists from reporting stuff that can lead to loss of life, it doesn't say anything about where the person can go. This means a journalist can follow the stealth mission since her reporting of it later wouldn't cause any loss of life.